Listed

It was two days after the IB secret document was leaked that a friend alerted me that I was Listed. This was unexpected, but not unduly surprising in view of my open position against India's entire nuclear program, particularly that at Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant (KKNPP). I believed then, as I do now, that survival of any democracy depends on availability of public space for divergent and dissenting viewpoints and scope to express these openly, to persuade public opinion and thus to collectively influence decisions serving our combined destiny.

Far worse has already happened at KKNPP, way before this IB report. At the height of the anti-Kudankulam agitation, peaceful protesters were harassed, beaten, jailed for opposing an energy project that could endanger their lives  and that of their progeny; would jeopardise health, and seriously damage local livelihoods and ecology. Thousands of FIRs were lodged against protesters, young and old, women and children, on grave charges of being seditious and for waging war against the state.  Yet, protests continued and spread far beyond the KKNPP zone, to other states and metros.

Bogey and myths of foreign funded(FF) NGOs were conjured by the state way back in 2012, by our PM himself (see here)to derail  increasingly serious public discussions that protesters against the KKNPP had succeeded in bringing to media's attention and in open forums. The debate was not merely about running KKNPP from within a thriving and independent community of fisher folks and subjugating them, but increasingly on the topic of rights. For the first time the image of the protester radicalized - from voiceless, downtrodden destitute, to strident communities with women alongside men, young children and very old, who were fully informed on the project and also their rights; they had the temerity to challenge the establishment; they were loud, articulate, engaging, debating and very determined. The State, refusing to engage on either the necessity of KKNPP, or the issue of people's democratic rights, had no option but to attack the questioners with an elaborate fiction. The leaked IB report just substantiates and perpetuates an old lie - with many more lies, more names, and utterly ridiculous figures, without any supporting arithmetic, for the net national fiscal loss due to these anti-national FF NGOs.

KKNPP 1 is commissioned and is now producing at full capacity. Yet, the orgy of repression is not stemmed; there continue to be those who are inconvenient, who think and dare question, the dangerous ones - these have been identified and blacklisted because thinking, speaking, having a different viewpoint hurts our democratic nation. Others, like me have been listed, as merely supporting these anti-nationals.

One thing that leaking this secret report does: it has made state's position very clear; dissent is anti-national and unpatriotic. Right to complain, legitimately, has expired. Those wronged must accept in grace that their sacrifice is mandatory for a larger national good - forget that the rich always benefit  and never get to make sacrifices or be patriots. New lows in democratic standards have been set in this largest democracy where might is not just right, but also rich and corporatized.

But India's public, its civil society, will not stomach this. We will continue to challenge set notions, ideologies, and politics of globalized development. We recognize that to convert legitimate, peoples movements into an elaborate web of ill-conceived lies is just that - a huge charade - and we laugh. People are waking and the state is nervous!

Nuclear Fallacies and Falsehoods

Fukushima Disaster happened on 3/11/11 - two years and eight months ago. The world watched,  horrified; and the horrors of this disaster are far from over.  Cleaning up task is formidable, and can never be fully successful, since vast amounts of radioactive pollutants have spewed into global winds and continue spilling into the oceans, poisoning them. In an overwhelming demonstration of sanity, many developed nations decided to end their dalliance with this dangerous technology and turned their sights on safe, green technologies to serve their future energy needs. The response from the nuclear lobby was as expected - they vulgarly underplayed the vast damages, to humans and environment, caused by the Fukushima and the predecessor nuclear disasters and continue to chant their nuclear  mantra of necessity, safety, and low cost - without accounting for the already enormous cost of damages to human life and living environment.

The latest bid to reverse a swelling tide of a global anti-nuclear sentiment, are two desperate and flawed efforts [here and here] in form of a letter and a film. In the first instance, four climate change scientists make a naive appeal to our rationale to support safe nuclear energy - not realizing that this is an oxymoron - in order to curb green house gas emissions and abate the threat of climate change.

The dangers of nuclear energy have been demonstrated many times over its history, not just with experiences of large disasters, such as Chernobyl, Three mile island and Fukushima, but also due to the many more smaller incidences that go relatively unnoticed, and whose human and environmental damage are more difficult to quantify, and go unaccounted (see for example the recent San Onfre shutdown). Added to this is the lengthy process of decommissioning and the long term/indefinite risks posed in safe containment of spent fuels;  we continue to witness the unsurmountable dangers from Fukushima's spent fuel rod pools, and the non-tractable leakages at the Hanford site in USA.

That nuclear energy cannot be disassociated from potentially high risks is known only too well by the nuclear business lobbies and the insuring agencies, who refuse to enter into business transactions without a sound safety net of sufficient government protection - as seen with their fuss over India's nuclear liability clause.

The authors contend that expanding energy needs are unavoidable, especially to provide for needs of developing economies and favor nuclear energy, even compared to the green renewable alternatives (like solar and wind) since nuclear is cheaper , and rapidly 'scalable', somehow suggesting wrongly that it takes longer to build solar panels and rig up wind farms compared to setting up a nuclear power plant.  Also, in a post Fukushima world, while the real cost of nuclear energy (including govt subsidies), is rising due to higher insurance costs, the cost of renewables in the global market has been falling sharply.

Thus the favoring of nuclear is based on its contentious low-cost and a  need for rapid energy expansion (in the developing world) - all this while Fukushima and the global community reel under continuation of hazardous contamination from a disaster of 32 months back. Even if accepted at face value, should one really favor 'cheap and fast' versus 'slow and safe' ? This is for the people of the developing nations to decide - for whom the authors are, very considerately, advocating expansion of nuclear energy.

Meanwhile, it is interesting to check out how much greenhouse gas (GHG) producing coal is burnt worldwide. The site also contains many other global energy statistics. Are the developed nations also planning to change their conventional energy sources to nuclear? Or, are they only adept at selling nuclear to developing nations, like India, while making only token efforts at home, to keep their nuclear business, alive, outside?

This brings me to the documentary ' Pandora's Promise' by Robert Stone, aired on CNN recently.  This documentary took 4 years to make with substantial effort to consult nuclear scientists, industry giants and specialists, all funded by the nuclear industry, to arrive at a well researched conclusion, that nuclear technology is 'really safe' . Now, there are two things I don't understand: why sound science of nuclear physics or chemistry, imply a safe working of nuclear technology? Sure, science drives technology, but this does not guarantee its successful functioning.  And, we should all know this by now.  Also, why ask the very beneficiaries of a technology, to vouchsafe for it? Wouldn't this be suspect for conflict of interest? How about asking all scientists 'not-funded or benefited' by the industry for their vote of confidence.

The film again harps on the needs of growing economies like China, India, Brazil to advocate nuclear energy. Either the pro-nuclear lobby has become surprisingly compassionate towards the needs of their poorer brethren or....they are just business savvy and know where their profits lie.

I guess, we are stupid to not be convinced, by their persuasive nuclear fallacies and falsehoods, and would now prefer to be only safe, rather than sorry?

Climate change exists, and must be countered, for survival - of us all. But, this need not be a 'from a frying pan to fire' game. And the choice we make is not between coal versus nuclear; we must instead evolve towards to an energy efficient, green and sustainable future, for all.

Leaking Liability Strategically

The issue of India's Civil Nuclear Liability has been a contentious one, with charged reactions from all sides. The principal points of the law, as it now stands, are a maximum liability cap of Rs. 2500 crores, in event of a disaster, to the operator, which in this case would be Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd(NPCIL) and GoI, plus a clause that allows NPCIL to subsequently sue the nuclear supplier for damages. It is this tiny clause that has deterred foreign commercial interests from venturing into nuclear trade with India - especially in a post Fukushima world.

The Indian state, with its nuclear establishment, under international and US pressure, is pushing for a dilution of India's liability clause to open up India's nuclear energy sector for commercialisation;  the foreign suppliers  are also keenly eyeing investment opportunities with India's ambitious goals of expanding its civil nuclear facilities, but can only afford to risk business ventures if the nuclear opportunity is offered risk-free - i.e. without the baggage of an eventual supplier liability - even if they were responsible by providing defective technology that caused a nuclear disaster.

Such a dilution was staunchly opposed by anti-nuclear activists, especially in pockets around the upcoming nuclear facilities, since this could potentially lead to a weakening of quality controls from a non-liable supplier and thus pose an increased risk of future calamity. Also, sections of India's civil society voiced their opposition based on the horrific human tragedy and fiasco, played out in the aftermath of the Bhopal chemical disaster; they were unwilling to let the Indian tax payers take full financial responsibility for any future and potentially a more dangerous nuclear disaster caused by a liability-shielded supplier's negligence and failure. The dilution issue also faced partisan reactions with nationalistic jingoism from right to expressed opposition from the left [See a recent mix of reactions here].

It is important to note that the recent unfolding of corruption charges against Zio Podolsk for supplying substandard equipment to nuclear facilities - both Russian and foreign - is part of the same larger concern of what can and will play out without a strictest liability clause that force adherence to quality control. Agreement for Units 1 and 2 of Kudankulam, between India and Russia, predated our Civil Nuclear Liability and was therefore exempt from it. One might argue that a better system of checks and monitoring, mandated if Russia were functioning within a tight nuclear liability clause, would have probably lead to a less compromised system with fewer substandard parts than were probably supplied to Kudankulam.

Now, this was the current state of affairs - or so I thought. Behind the scenes, however, a whole different drama had already played out. I chanced upon this script from WikiLeaks.

There are many serious and grave revelations:

1) It appears that Indian officials are willing to compromise the liability issue and facilitate free nuclear commerce with the US provided they receive strategic cooperation on the issues of reprocessing and enrichment. India would then ratify the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear damage(CSC), despite this not being a recommended choice for the nation. India's signing the Safeguard Agreement with IAEA also was conditional to progress on nuclear reprocessing and enrichment.

2)The officials reiterated their commitment to the letter of intent, already been signed with the US, for two nuclear parks with a combined capacity of 10,000 MW. The site explorations were concluded although the sites not finalised.

3)There was a strong push to encourage participation of private sector in power generation and management and also for partnerships between Indian firms and  US suppliers - to keep the cost of nuclear energy competitive.

The need for concern is strong. The civil nuclear liability issue, that provides a safety net for Indian citizens, in case of a nuclear event, is being used as a bartering chip for so called 'more important' strategic goals. That this happens behind closed doors, and with far fetched ambitions for the nuclear energy sector - without media participation and far from public eye, is a cause for further worry. That private Indian vendors and public-private-partnerships are encouraged, takes the exercise even further away from the realm of safe-and-secure, with increased difficulty for any vigilant monitoring or supervision of quality control - necessary for the complex and risky nuclear industry. And thus to systematically derail national interest and safety of its citizens by weakening the issue of liability,  under such circumstances, is just sheer madness. Beware!

Supremely Courting Disaster at Koodankulam

In a bizarre, but not so recent development, India's Supreme Court has taken to ruling on cases, based not on applications of laws, nor readdressing of petitions or pleas, but via self-appointed mandates and grandiose generalities that pertain little to law and less to justice.  
It is an attempt by the court to act supreme without bothering with any inconvenient truths or harsh realities.

I am referring to the Supreme Court's justifying the hanging of Afzal Guru for "satisfying the collective conscience of the nation", or the recent SC approval of the Koodankulam nuclear plant (KKNPP), since "a balance has to be struck between the right to life and sustainable development". 

The Koodankulam ruling was based, not on the legitimate and serious safety concerns, which STILL remain, but on Court's perception of national developmental goals vis-a-vis constitutionally sacred, right to life of all - including the predominantly marginalised communities in the neighborhood of the plant. The court took this untenable position without realising that the very notion of development and how this nation should go about it, is not part of this or any other Court's mandate - whereas right to life is. Unashamed and non-apologetic the Supreme Court ruled that this right-to-life could be compromised, since the nation's need for energy is greater.  It bought the rhetoric of the nuclear establishment without demanding rigorous compliance of safety standards, and  in a direct conflict of interest,  delegated the assurance of the plant's safety to the very same authorities charged with commissioning the plant and who have been crying themselves hoarse " All is Well" - despite allegations of complicity  in a series of omissions, violations and compromises for a hasty commissioning.  

Instead of a soppy “Nobody on the earth can predict what would happen in future and to a larger extent we have to leave it to the destiny…", the supreme court could have made history if it had realised that while  destiny is not in man's hand,  uncompromising attention and rigor in implementation of safety standards is - and this needs to be assured, independently, before operation of any giant, complex technology which is potentially very risky to humans and environment.

Death-ly Competition: Choosing between Nuclear and Fossil Fuels

Yesterday, the world mourned on the 27th anniversary of the Chernobyl Disaster - and things are still not 'normal' in the disaster effected zone. In fact,  many things will never get fixed, or normal, or reverted to prior-to-accident-state - some 30,000 sq. kms which will remain contaminated actively radiating till 2090 - polluting soil, air, water, and all living things and also killing them.

In this context, the efforts of nuclear lobby took an absurd and macabre turn with this recently published paper. The authors calculated deaths prevented by production of nuclear power, instead of power from fossil fuels - which would generate sufficient air pollution to choke 1.8 million people to death. This estimate is a cumulative of nuclear power generated throughout history and strongly advocates its future expansion, despite the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters, to  prevent a purported 7 million deaths by mid-century. It is curious that the authors compared two hazardously polluting thermal technologies, run on nuclear and fossil fuels, to declare nuclear power a winner - and this dubious win is also a suspect. It is more surprising that a journal like Environmental Science & Technology decided to publish this article, since competing two flawed and inviable technologies cannot be used to promote scientific merits of either.

However, if one were to indulge in such a bizzare exercise of account keeping deaths, it is also necessary to track all dead, or dying and generations yet to be born who will die, unnaturally, because their ancestors, in the distant past, were exposed in nuclear disasters. Between 1986-2004, an estimated 985,000 died mostly due to cancer from Chernobyl exposure. By 2011, this number had risen to 1.5 million. Yes.. it is true that these estimates are statistical , but these are now statistics of large numbers and well above average mortality expectations (for example the cancer rates in cleaning crew is three times higher than rest of the population). Remember that for every death due to radiation exposure there are at least twice as many cases of cancer - with their untold misery, pain and suffering. And, all this before we reach the half life of 137Cesium which is 30 years.  It takes three decades for half of the radioactive 137 Cesium to have decayed and harmed everything in its path...and between five to seven such half lives before the radioactive effects become sufficiently small. Thus the radioactive contamination of 137 Cesium will continue decaying and damaging ad infinitum, as will also the other radioactive isotopes of Strontium and Plutonium.


While it might be too early yet to observe the health damage in the exposed population in Japan, recent studies seem to indicate that the Cesium levels from Fukushima disaster could be as much as 20-30 times higher, and might contribute to a thousand times more deaths than predicted. In fact, the effect of irradiating the food chain will contribute and build radiation poisoning in all species. Thus, the total future death toll from Fukushima disaster should also be subtracted from the estimated  'lives saved' in this paper.

A question for the authors is : when a single major nuclear accident, like Chernobyl, can wipe off the canvassed advantage of the historically-compounded nuclear power, over coal, are they sure of their conclusion - of saving lives with nuclear energy, and further advocating a global nuclear future? Especially when the death toll from Chernobyl and Fukushima will continue to increase on time scale much much longer than our lifetimes, or of these authors writing this ludicrous paper.

Also, the authors calculate that IAEA's projected increase in nuclear energy capacity till 2050 will save a further maximum of 7 million lives, forgetting to scale alongside the direct additional risk of serious future nuclear accidents. Are ready to risk four times as many Chernobyls and Fukushima, with their un-countable future deaths and health impacts and the vast irreversible environmental costs, to allow a future nuclear race? Can we, as a human race sustain or even survive this?

Don't get me wrong - I am definitely not arguing in favor of highly polluting, hazardous, huge GHG emitting fossil fuelled thermal power plants. But I staunchly oppose the pitching one disastrous technology against another to proclaim, unethically, a winner. For this is what the authors do - use incomplete calculations to make strong and wrong inferences, to lobby for the future of nuclear energy, forgetting, that nuclear accidents are inseparable components of such complex and unsafe technology and there can only be losers in such  "death-ly competition".

Sun over Water & Energy Potential

First of all, let me make myself very clear. Anytime I start talking about energy, electricity, power etc. I am doing it in an absolute and firm context of my well researched, well considered and therefore a deep and entrenched opposition to nuclear - energy, weapons - you name it.

A pilot program in Gujarat, from last year, had completely escaped my attention. The project was to generate 1 MW of electrical energy by covering 1 km Narmada canal with solar panel; additional benefits include saving on canal water evaporation, and eliminating need for additional land and avoiding displacement. Even though this idea has emerge from the Modi state, I still like it.  And, the idea appears to have been picked up by Karnataka -BJP Gujarat's sister-state .Karnataka has 1 lakh kilometers of irrigation canals and with 1 MW per kilometer potential, you work out the math.

The idea has been particularly endorsed by the Renewable Energy Minister Farooq Abdullah for replication in the Damodar valley, especially since, as he says, the cost of solar energy generation has dropped to Rs.7/unit from Rs.18/unit.

Now, with a good idea like this, can we get rid of all big, bad ideas that are expensive, dangerous to life, hazardous to health, polluting of environment, irrational, and unnecessary, like nuclear, thermal, large dams etc etc.

Bloody Power!

I have been away. For eight weeks. Really Away - no phone, internet, connection to my regular life or loved ones - to retreat into myself and find connections within and without - in a natural, mostly non-peopled world of things wild, wide and beautiful.

I return to find many things drastically changed in a world that dominates my life i.e. my intense and sometimes obsessive preoccupation with the civil liberties and humans rights challenges and horrors of this country. Foremost among these obsessions , for the last year, has been with the intense, prolonged, passionate and peaceful opposition to the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant mounted by the local communities fighting to preserve their life, health, environment and livelihood in a post-Fukushima, and more enlightened world - at least more aware about real dangers in presuming safety of nuclear technologies.

I left during an impasse between the state and the protesters, the latter having found support from heavy weights like Aruna Roy. I returned and found time to catch up with mails only to find that a repressive state that could charge thousands as seditious had crossed the final line, of reasonable and restrained, to squash protests using brutal violence, with guns and batons. No one was spared, not children, aged, women. Two were killed - and I did not know. All this bloodshed - for electric power? for personal and political power?for national development? with Nuclear Power?

Bloody Power used to shed Blood of the Poor to serve hidden agendas with Nuclear Power - Bloodied Power!

Erratum and An Update on Populations Placed Under Nuclear Risk

Karuna Raina called today regarding my blog on numbers at risk due to current and proposed nuclear plants.
Staring at the table, it appears that Koodankulam has been counted twice, once as itself, and once more as Tirunelvelli. This is an error. The total numbers at risk within 80km radius is now 113 million instead of 122 million. However, few points are noteworthy. First, for six of the plants I have used 2001 census data. The average increase in India's population over the 2001-2011 decade is 17.64%; so the populations around each of these plants is likely to increase by about a similar percentage. Also proximity to large towns have been ignored; for example Rawatbhata is 25mi from Kota - a large city. Also in the list of India's nuclear planned and proposed plants,  I find that there are a few plants I have not included in my list. Of these, interestingly, Haripur is becoming the most haunting with an increasing likelihood of resurrection. And, the population density of Bardhaman district (2011 census) is 1100/sq.km - more than double of Tirunelvelli/Koodankulam area. Thus the basic premise of about 10% of India's population being placed at risk due to the presence of current or proposed nuclear plant - still holds - and is likely to go up - if calculated precisely.

Maps of Global Renewable Potential

These maps are extracted using google searches. The reference to the Wind Map below is here. Please click to view and enlarge. Note the potential for India.

 -

The map below shows the scope for solar energy, globally.




The annual water map of the world is given below - with an associated potential for harnessing energy via mini, micro and small hydro power.



Biomass Global map is given below.








The above geothermal map is taken from here.

Now I wonder if our lawmakers have gone through these maps? studied them sufficiently to realise that we, the nation, are blessed enough, naturally? and nuking is not necessary.

Response to MRS

 MR Srinivasan(MRS), the ex-chief of atomic energy commission, has recently attempted to re-persuade the public that there really is no alternative to a nuclear power plant at Koodankulam. To this end, he resorts to sweeping generalities, inappropriate distractions and deliberate falsehoods to prop up his arguments – and cleverly side steps the real issues and concerns of people who oppose this nuclear plant.

All proposed nuclear plants in India, like those at Jaitapur, Kovvada, Gorakhpur, Haripur, etc., are sites of intense public opposition due to their inherent risks, even during normal operations. Risks of a serious accident, whether natural, man-made, or of technical origin, further compound the resistance in vulnerable communities near the plants. Thus, there is a real need to address the viability of energy alternatives for India’s rising demands. This write up offers a point wise rebuttal to MR Srinivasan’s many wrong contentions, and also serves as a reminder to a few of the lesser known facts about a nuclear-India.

Natural Gas: Currently, natural gas accounts for more than 10% of India’s installed electricity generations – this despite its other uses as feedstock, domestic and transport fuel. A recent report on the natural gas capacity in India places it amongst the fastest growing conventional options, and recommends that India take advantage of the excess global availability of the fuel and its green advantages. In a similar vein, India’s oil ministry is targeting a tripling in the pipeline capacity for gas distribution. Natural gas is expected to feature increasingly in India’s demand to generate electricity. The cost of natural gas has already fallen by 60% from 2011, and is at a 16 year minimum, due to oversupply in the market; its value currently stands at $2.45/million BTU; MRS uses an unrealistic value of $8-9/million BTU which was last seen in 2007-08 period, to imply a per unit cost which is twice that of nuclear energy!

Wind Energy: A recent assessment by Lawrence Berkely National Laboratory places the wind potential of India at 2000-3000 GW, much higher than the government estimate of 102 GW. This enormous potential requires an estimated  0.05% of India’s land; only 3% of that land is used for power generation, so most of the land in a wind farm is still available for traditional or other uses. Suzlon has recently announced that it has crossed a 1GW mark wind capacity at Jaisalmer, indicative of the practicality of wind as a potential component to India’s energy solutions. Tamil Nadu state itself currently has an installed wind capacity of over 6 GW. It is true that wind power generation happens only part of the time; however in peninsular India, this luckily happens during the monsoon months, when the solar generation is low.

Solar energy: might be diffuse, but its potential, especially in India, is virtually limitless. The solar global market is expected to witness a rise of 200-400% over the next five years with Asia taking a lead.

Furthermore, the scope of meeting the needs of our millions, who are without power, become feasible with ideas of rooftop solar panels for households. This idea was recently examined by Prof. Chokshi at IISc., and shown to have a potential for meeting distributed energy needs  without needing any 100MW photovoltaic solar plants considered by MRS. This has an additional advantage of cutting down enormously on transmission and distribution losses – which in India are  27% of total electricity produced.  While the per unit cost of solar energy is high compared to conventional fuels, in Dec. 2011, its cost fell below the cost of power generated from a diesel source to Rs. 7.49/unit, far below Rs.20/unit quoted by MRS;  and a further drop by 40% is expected by 2015.

Hydro-Power: While MRS limits himself to large hydro projects and its associated human and environmental damages, small hydro electric projects have a potential for renewable and distributed energy generation while also avoiding the large scale damages. Their potential as an integral part of a multi-pronged and green energy approach has yet to be fully explored, and exploited. A feasibility study of mini, micro and small hydro power plants has been carried out at IISc. along the Bedthi and Aghanashini rivers in Uttara Kanara district of Karnataka. It has been estimated that the energy harnessed from streams would provide, respectively, 720, and 510 million unitsof electricity! Grossest estimates for electricity generation from small hydro projects, based on currently available data, suggests a potential of 15 GW –  with likelihood that this number might vastly increase.

Coal: is an unfortunate and a major provider of India’s power needs – and the sooner we wean ourselves – the better.

Nuclear Energy: Contributes about 2.7% to India’s current electricity production with 20 operating nuclear reactors. Koodankulam nuclear Power plant, at the verge of criticality, cost Rs.13,000 crores and almost ten years to build. It has an expected potential of 2 GW, at full capacity. India proposes that by 2032, the national nuclear capacity will increase to 63 GW from a current capacity of 4.8 GW.

MRS grossly underplays deaths and damages in Chernobyl and Three Mile Island nuclear disasters, while underscoring that lessons have been learnt. The disaster at Chernobyl has left a legacy of wastelands far beyond regional and national boundaries and mutated the genetic pool of all living matter, plant, animal or human for generations to come. Only the nuclear establishment can callously dismiss the living tragedy of the post-Chernobyl generations and count death with only the handfuls that immediately died. The latest estimate by Union of Concerned Scientists places the casualties of Chernobyldisaster at 25,000, with approximately double of that for radiation induced cancer [ Also see this]

It would be un-scientific to call any nuclear reactor ‘fully-safe’. WANO certificate on technical safety can be accepted – at face value – as only that. Safety of any nuclear plant can be compromised by human error or sabotage, or caused by freak natural occurrences, and human inability to respond appropriately to these during crisis. Fukushima only resulted in our nuclear establishment declaring our 100% safe plants – more 100% safe.

Now a few points that have escaped public attention: In an independent study funded by DAE on the health effects around the Kalpakkam nuclear facility, Dr. Manjula Datta found that cancer cases in nearby villages were seven times higher than in control samples. A 2005 UNSCEAR study found Kalpakkam to have the highest Tritium releases in the world; Tritium is a carcinogen and a mutagen.

Tell a lie often enough, and it becomes truth. MRS concludes by urging confidence in our nuclear engineers who have operated India’s power plants safely for last 40 years – that is, if we choose to ignore the  major reported incidences at Kalpakkam and other facilities; the fire in Narora facility in 1993 being the most serious of all Indian nuclear accidents.Having confidence in our nuclear engineers does not rule out  nuclear accidents or catastrophe. 

So, we can either live in the make believe world of MRS to perpetuate his unnecessary, expensive and hazardous nuclear fantasy. Or, we could do one or both of the following -immediately: (1)Cut down on transmission and distribution losses with insulated wires buried underground and immediately enjoy a whopping ten times our current nuclear capacity.(2) Convert from incandescent to CFL (or LEDs) bulbs to save an estimated 10 GW - without constructing a nuclear plant.

Finally, let us remember that a nation is made of its people; and national development has to be people based. It cannot be dictated from top - it must necessarily involve consensual approach, especially of those people who have most to lose.

Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant, Democracy and Sedition

The protest over a Nuclear Power Plant at Koodankulam (KKNPP) started soon after India and Russia signed an agreement on the project, way back on November 20, 1988. In May 1989, ten thousand people gathered to oppose the project. Police disconnected mikes and opened fire.

A lull followed due to the collapse of the Soviet bloc and also the assassination of India's PM, Rajiv Gandhi. The project was revived in 1997 and linked to the purchase of T-90 tanks, SU-30 planes and the Admiral Gorshkov submarine from Russia. It took ten years to hold a public hearing on the project - seven thousand people attended. This meeting was abruptly discontinued when people protested that the proceedings were not conducted in the local language.

The protest movement around the nuclear plant, People's Movement Against Nuclear Energy (PMANE), gained enormously in strength and support, following the Japanese nuclear disaster at Fukushima, leaping into national visibility and much wider public prominence. The protesters set up an independent, technically savvy expert committee of PMANE to challenge the State and India's nuclear establishment with tough questions.  Their opposition to the project revolved around some very simple and basic positions:

Nuclear industry is associated with well documented hazards - even in normal operations -. which are harmful to the health of humans and environment. People living in the vicinity of the KKNPP had a right to protect their own lives, and the lives of their future generations, and rejected this hazardous technology from operating in their backyards - they also opted not to need its benefits.

The heat dump from the nuclear power plant would significantly increase the temperature along their shoreline - where they fished, and endanger the traditional livelihood - on which they were dependent. They intended to protect their livelihood mechanisms, which could not be guaranteed once the reactor became operational.

Safety of any nuclear plant against a serious accident cannot ever be guaranteed. While suppliers of India's planned, imported nuclear plants scuttled behind and demanded further dilution of India's liability clause, Russians were fully exempt from shouldering any liability in case of a future accident at KKNPP - even if due to their own faulty technology. People around KKNPP  realised that they were being required to risk their lives, while the providers of the technology risked nothing - not even a financial loss.

PMANE demanded scrapping the entire project, arguing on the basis of geologic unsuitability of the site, technical issues related water availability - crucial to the running of any nuclear plant,  large and adverse impact on livelihoods of local fishing communities, and the high population density around the plant - making evacuation a virtual impossibility - in case of a catastrophic accident.

PMANE opposed the Koodankulam nuclear power plant with an ever increasing strength and following of women, men, young and old, across religious, caste, class, and state boundaries. It drew observers, and enlisted solidarity and support from students, professionals, scientists, journalists, as also from people's movements and activists spanning  political ideologies, and developmental paradigms. The movement aroused curiosity, interest and sympathies from the thinking and the comfortable, educated class, and thereby initiated a process of inquiry into India's development, and questions of who sacrifices and who gains. It soon became one of the two largest people's movements in India's current history - the other being Anna's movement against corruption. However, unlike the latter, which was fragmentary in nature and confused in goals, the PMANE movement stood out for its singularly clear demand of a Nuclear Free Koodankulam, Nuclear Free India and Nuclear Free World. The movement belonged to those people who were the chosen victims for India's irrational nuclear ambitions; and they had no option, but to fight - to live.

The protesters sat in peaceful dharnas and observed long periods of fasts - en mass - drawing public and state's attention to their plight. Each day drew crowds of thousands, all fasting, to a village center.  All shops were closed - small fraction made it under the shades of plastic awnings - volunteers carried around buckets with water sachets for free distribution. Women with children sat, under scorching sun or pouring rain, sometimes with a sagging umbrella, listening to their leaders talk, and they spoke themselves - on mikes - with a rare confidence in clarity of purpose - to save themselves, their families and their communities from the immediate danger of a monstrous nuclear reactor. It was uplifting to see their faces - alive, alert, listening - after all what was being spoken about dealt with their future, their combined fates.This group of mostly women, young and old,  succeeded in blockading the entry to the KKNPP in Oct. 2011, till the Tamil Nadu state finally agreed to not allow any further work to proceed on the plant - till all their doubts and fears were allayed.

On March 20, 2012, Jayalalitha - the chief minister of the state ofTamil Nadu, in a clearly political bartering with the center, approved the KKNPP for operations. About 6000 heavily armed police force guarded the the entrance to the reactor site and immediately arrested several hundreds, including key leaders of the people's movement PMANE. Overnight, people who were in active dialogue with the state officials and leadership, became criminals with a large number of cases foisted on them. Today, more than 55,000 people have FIRs filed against them, and more than 6800 are charged with waging war against the state and on grounds sedition - more than filed ever before, in a single police station, in such a short period of time. Udaykumar, the coordinator of PMANE is charged with murder, along with many other serious charges and remains in Idinthakerai - the crucible of the protest movement.

People's opposition to the KKNPP and the excessive, repressive reaction by the state against the protesters, requires that we, the citizens of this nation, ask ourselves some tough questions - on rights of the state versus the sovereignty of people - in a constitutional democracy. It demands that we understand and appropriate our constitutional rights which include right to life, right to livelihood, and right to protest - peacefully. This is what the protesters against KKNPP have been doing. Peaceful protests, like the ones conducted in Idinthakerai and other villages around KKNPP are touchstones of any vibrant, active, healthy democracy. These are processes for creating truly representative governments which act in trusteeship of  people and their interests. To demean a movement like PMANE as being either vested, or anti-national, or anti-development, is to deliberately mislead the people of this nation from the real issues that drive these protests. To further criminalize a peaceful, democratic, opposition movement as waging war against the state or as Seditious (i.e. dis-affectionate or dis-loyal to the State) goes  completely against the democratic principles on which this country is founded. One must remember that issues of democracy, do not require and cannot operate on the basis of either affection or loyalty towards state - it is precisely this act of disaffection or lack of loyalty that enables each of us, as individuals to remove, via the electoral process,  persons or party who no longer represent our interests. To charge peaceful protesters in a free and democratic India, with an act expressly constructed and applied by the British to repress India's freedom movement - is indicative of the harsh reality and repressive culture of India's political climate today. If protesters seeking to safeguard personal and community safety are now criminals waging war against the state, then it is time we, we all, really woke up to the reality of the State we live in - a State of Fear!

Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant - Feel Safe??

Earthquake activity around Koodankulam Atomic plant created using Google Earth 

The above CLICKABLE image shows the soup of seismic activity that surrounds the KKNPP. Each red dot represents a recorded earthquake; the size is indicative of the intensity - smallest dot is a magnitude 4.0 earthquake while the biggest one towards botton left is a 7.6 magnitude earthquake, 1500 km away. The red line on the image represents a 250km scale. Remember that the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami that devastated the Tamil Nadu coast was triggered by a 9.1 magnitude earthquake off the coast of Sumatra - about 2000 km away!!!

Are we sure we are ready to have Koodankulam 1 go critical? Then, brace yourselves guys...

Death of Democracy

Democracy Died Today in Tamil Nadu. At 3 pm. Democracy died for men, women, young, old, and of all faiths, living in the vicinity of the Koodankulam power plant and opposed to this nuclear monstrosity for the last eight months - staking their all in this struggle for life.

Democracy Died today when people became mere pawns in political games of a powerful few, who could wilfully decide whose and how many lives should be sacrificed, when.

Democracy Died when national good was no longer about any larger or common or good; when the dictates of life or free will of many could be sacrificed to absurdities and whims of leadership with enormous and self-appropriated powers. Democracy is not a bully's weapon for imposing sacrifices on some, to benefit others.

Democracy Died today when fundamental rights to life and livelihood were bartered for the sake of money already spent, on an unnecessary technology - too risky for liability, and in areas of volatile seismicity - without consideration of benign alternatives.

Democracy died today with a single nod to the Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant. And, yet, can the will of so many be denied? Will their voices and their will, not jolt the nation out of its slumber? Will this Death of Democracy itself bear seeds of a new generation, of true freedom, and of a truly awakened nation?

Why Koodankulam Nuclear Plant Cannot be Allowed to Happen: Voices of Women from the Area

To:

Hon’rable Chief Minister,

Tamil Nadu                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            16/3/12

Re: Why Koodankulam Nuclear Plant Cannot be Allowed to Happen: Voices of Women from the Area

Dear Madam,

We write to you as women against KKNPP and also as emissaries on behalf of mothers, sisters, daughters who have been in staunch and steadfast opposition to the project., KKNPP will irrevocably ruin lives and livelihood of many future generations, if allowed to  operate. We do want energy and electricity for our homes, villages and communities. Yet, as women, we resolutely oppose KKNPP because

1. We will not be mute observers to a real threat of a nuclear accident which depends on occurrence of natural disaster, guarantee of technical safeguards, and also, very importantly, human error and terrorist attack. To claim any nuclear plant is 100% safe is a deliberate falsehood.

2. The impact of radiation on biological and reproductive health of women and girls in particular has been well documented around nuclear power plants. We cannot endanger lives and health, current and future, of our families, our people, our communities, our land, our air , our water, our sea , and our seafood  because the GoI deems us expendable. We urge you to please put the welfare of the people of your state before the irrational nuclear ambitions of GoI.

3. Nuclear Energy is unnecessary. There are sufficient alternate and renewable options for Tamil Nadu. Immediate solutions include enormous gains via conservation (example switching to CFL bulbs, solar thermal water heaters) and reduction in transmission losses which eliminates the need for such large, complex, unsafe technologies.

4. Many countries are moving away from a nuclear option to meet their energy needs. Current generation nuclear technologies with a high cost of insurance undermine nuclear power being the 'cheapest' energy option - as promoted by the industry. Post Fukushima, and with China entering the photo-voltaic market, solar energy will soon be competitive in providing a viable safe and renewable power alternative.

5. KKNPP has unanswered and unresolved technical issues like the known seismic activity of the region; it is also the only nuclear plant in the world that depends entirely on the desalination plant for its entire fresh water supply. 

We write to you from Idinthakarai, the seat of people's opposition movement. What we saw here, inspired us and moved our hearts. Womenfar outweighed men in sheer numbers, their intensity, their loud and vocal opposition, and their complete commitment to the cause. We saw women sit for eight hours without food, water, carrying babies in their arms, and transfixed in attention to what was been spoken on the strage. They had taken to streets, under sun, rain and the elements, to protect their children and their future generations. Their faces showed that they had already crossed a threshold of no-return. They would protect their children and their lives at all cost. They have been at the forefront of a battle for life itself. We urge you, please, to take their side; please take our side, and call an immediate halt to this mindless project.

Arati Chokshi (People’s Union for Civil Liberties - PUCL)

Lalita Ramdas (Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament & Peace –CNDP)

Gowru Chinnapa (People’s Union for Civil Liberties - PUCL)

Raminder Kaur (Anthropologist)

Dipti Desai (JANASTU) &

Thousands of Women from the KKNPP Struggle Area 

A Citizen’s Response To Dr. Manmohan Singh’s Interview in Science, 24-2-2012

Mr. Prime Minister,

I was shocked to read of your interview in Science Magazine on Feb. 24, 2012.  While drawing attention to India as a democracy, you have failed to respond to the legitimate and widespread democratic concerns of citizens on issues of genetically modified foods, and India’s aggressive nuclear expansionist policies. To sideline serious concerns over the safety and merits of both these programs as merely vested by funds from outside, is incorrect, and does not befit a person in your office. One might cast similar aspersions on the many ‘partnerships’ entered by GoI with foreign nations, which might not be considered by all to benefit our nation.

I ask GoI to respond to safety concerns posed by the independent expert committee report on Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant (KNPP). Besides these particular safety issues with the KNPP project, there are also high health risks associated with radiation exposures for communities living around any nuclear plant. Two studies carried out in Germany and more recently in France show a spike in incidence of leukemia in children around nuclear power plants – a result that should not be taken lightly.

In any democracy, the voice of opposition or dissent – if heard and responded to seriously, strengthens the democratic process and yields solutions that are more representative of people’s needs and concerns. Yet, you have dismissed all opposition to your individual vision for the nation as effectively ‘non-thinking’.

India is at a serious crossroad – to subserve a State-Corporate nexus by siphoning off all national resources with processes such as SEZs, commodification of water resources, industrial energy subsidies, encouraging GM of our food security and promoting FDIs, or, to reassert the true sovereignity of the citizens of this socialist, secular, democratic republic, so that even the highest appointments of the State must first represent and serve people’s interest.

I ask that you do not resort to potentially slanderous, repressive tactics to gag discussions on nuclear or any other ‘development’ issues using any un-mandated powers of your office, but instead adopt a consultative approach with people of India, to resolve their issues and concerns.  While this process may be slow, we must remember that we are not China, as you pointed out in the interview to Science.

Sincerely,

Arati Chokshi

Nuclear Hype and Reality of Uranium Mining

First the Hype.

"During the complete fission of 1 Kg U-235, 19 billion kilo calories are released, i.e. 1 Kg uranium-235 corresponds to 2.7 million Kg coal equivalent" .

Unsurprisingly, most of this propaganda originates from the beneficiaries of nuclear industry and their government sponsors.

Now, lets work out the real numbers - simply.

Method 1:
Lets work out what it takes to get this 1 Kg of uranium-235. In nature the component of this isotope of U-235 to total Uranium is 0.7%. Thus one has to mine 1/0.7% or (1000/7) Kg of total Uranium to get  Kg of U-235. Now the typical ore richness (i.e amount of Uranium to total material mined) is 1/2000; thus the total amount of mined material is 2000x1000/7 i.e. a million/3.5 more or about 300,000 Kg of mining. Thus a rough 'nuclear' advantage is about a factor of 10, rather than the about 3 million implied.

Method 2:


Each nuclear fission reaction produces 200 MeV of energy. In comparison, a thermal reaction for example, coal burning to carbon dioxide produces about 4 eV of energy. Thus each nuclear reaction releases 50 million times more energy compared to a chemical reaction. If we were to compare burning a tonne of coal, and fuel extracted from a tonne of Uranium ore( i.e a 3.5/million tonne), we again get nuclear to thermal advantage as

(3.5/million)x(12/235)x(50 million) = about 10!

Here the second term is the ratio of the atomic weights of carbon to Uranium and is a measure of atoms present per kilo of each material that will participate in thermal or nuclear reaction. Last term is the extra energy released in a nuclear fission compared to carbon burning.

Down Sides of Uranium Mining and the factor of ten nuclear advantage?

First of all, mining Uranium is unlike any other mining known to man.  An ore with 0.05% U is radioactive; even after  Uranium extraction, the remnant ore is still substantially radioactive. Although the uranium ore in geologic structures is usually stable, the mining processes release radioactive materials.  Particularly harmful are the acids or alkalies used to extract the mineral (via leaching) at the site itself, since these react with the ore material producing highly hazardous substances that infiltrate the aquatic ecosystems, causing irreparable environmental damage. Further, Uranium production is highly energy and water intensive.

Before considering any uranium mining, it is also necessary to consider the more obvious down sides of any nuclear power program, during operation, waste disposal, and the enormous,  unforgivable risk posed to life in case of an event or accident.

Current Affairs:


Recently, there has been a great deal of excitement and furor over the discovery of "Massive Deposits of Uranium in Andhra Pradesh with up to 150,000 tonnes of Uranium Ore deposits. This ore is of poor quality, and insufficient to meet the needs of our nuclear program. Yet with a typically pompous arrogance, our government is marching ahead, acquiring agricultural lands for conversions to cess-pools of toxic and radio- active waste, impervious to large public protests or outcry - all to combat Nation's 'future energy threat'.

It is high time we took over our Future, our Energy, and understood the real Threat to our Security.

Nuclear Numbers and Statistics of Disaster

India's current capacity is 4,385 MW from its 20 nuclear reactors in five locations. It proposes to raise this contribution to 20,000 MW by 2020 and to a further 63,000 MW by 2032 - greater than twelve fold increase in a 21 year period. It will achieve this by an accelerated growth of its civil nuclear program, increasing both the number of sites and also the number of reactors per site. According to the World Nuclear Association, this increase is planned as follows:
                             Reactors    Power               Date  
------------------------------------------------------------
Under Construction       5       3650 MW          2012        
Planned                       18      15,700 MW        2021        
'Firmly' Proposed          39      45,000 MW        2023      
------------------------------------------------------------
With the increase in number of nuclear reactors comes the associated increase in risk of nuclear incidence. These have been calculated globally, but can also be done for the Indian scenario. Following the methodology given here, the probability of a severe nuclear accident (INES greater than 5) is got by assuming, conservatively, that there have been 4 such nuclear events over 15000 reactor-years for the 433 reactors operating world wide.  We get probability of one severe accident per reactor year as q=4/15000. The mean(m) number of accidents for any reactor number(N) over a duration (y) is then

m=qNy

Mean number of accident, m, expected over a 20 year period (y) is given below; p(>1) is the probability of atleast 1 severe accident in percentage over the same 20 years, following the method outlined in the reference.

For India Reactors             N              m             p>1       Yrs(m=1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing                            20             0.1           9.5%        187
+under contruction             25             0.13         12%         150
+ planned                          43             0.23         20%          87
+ proposed                        82             0.44         36%          45
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thus the chance of a severe nuclear accident in India over a twenty year period is about 10% right now and increases systematically to a substantial risk  of 20% in the next 10 years, to high risk of 36% when all those proposed are operating, by 2023. Another way of expressing the same is to calculate, how many years it would take, on average, for one severe nuclear accident in India (i.e. for m=1, y=1/Nq). Currently, on average, we expect to have one such accident per 187 years; this number drops rapidly as we increase our arsenal of nuclear reactors, to an expectancy of once every 45 years, if all the proposed nuclear power reactors were to be built.

There are two caveats to bear in mind. The expert proponents of nuclear power would claim that the new generations of nuclear reactors come with advanced safety provisions and the number used of 4 accidents per total history(15000 reactor years) of all nuclear generators is an overestimate for future generation reactors. True; but accidents like Fukushima take place, not due to lack of safety features, but because of the unforseen that occured. In case of Fukushima, it was the failure of all 13 backup generators. Accidents happen not due to lack of preparation for the imagined, but because the un-imagined also occurs. Statistics, when used in risk analyses, give us an average estimate of most likely events.

Secondly, it is necessary to be aware that the cumulative risks for nuclear reactors grouped together in a particular location, increases the likelihood of simultaneous multiple event as in Fukushima. This has not been included in the calculation.

To summarise, India runs an ever increasing risk of a major nuclear disaster, as it seeks to foolishly exploit the potential of nuclear energy. This, when we have an almost infinite solar potential of 6000 million GWh of energy of every year shining freely upon us!

Digging Nuclear - Figures from a Stats Site

Looking for probability calculations for nuclear accidents, I stumbled upon these - made post Fukushima. The calculations are based on 19 nuclear incidences of various INES levels over 59 years and assumes a poisson distribution of events. Detailed explanations are given in the site itself.









Note that the above are already 'wrong' to the extent that we have had 4 INES 7 accidents in 25 years, or at least 2 such accidents (if we call all three related Fukushima events as 1 accident) in the last 25 years. So, the above can at best be taken as a conservative and a minimum event estimates.

Meanwhile, "The Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd has ruled out the probability of the calamitous events at the quake and tsunami-ravaged Fukushima nuclear power plant getting replicated" (ref).

For me, the question no longer is "Should India go nuclear?" This seems the right time to ask" Can the world afford to go nuclear?"

Nuclear Expansion and Human Costs: 10% of India at Risk

Continuing an order-of-magnitude calculation for India based on population densities around nuclear plants, I can estimate, roughly, the population at risk due to proximity to a nuclear plant. For a 50 mile (ie 80km) evacuation radius around the current and proposed nuclear power plants in India, I essentially get an identical plot as in the first post on this issue except each number is 16 times larger ( from a squared area factor between 20 and 80 km radius). A sum total of all these amounts to a whopping 122 million  i.e. 10%  of India's current population. This is the population living at risk of a nuclear incidence.

Are we willing to risk so many?

Who Needs more POWER

Here is my basic premise. India's energy consumption, like most of its other resource utilisation, is to a very large extent decoupled from meeting the needs of its masses. In India, as many as 400 million people have no access to electricity. And while the 8.8% growth in our GDP is celebrated and closely linked to a correlated growth in energy demands, it derives from active 'consumption' by the rich and the middle class,leaving the masses mostly outside its reach. Yet it is the poor who most often are forced to sacrifice for the country's inflated development needs and aspirations.

When the State uses force and fires on its own citizens to enforce compliance of the proposed national goals, it is time to review what drives these goals, who benefits and who pays. It is still with me, that within India's democratic framework, police - under state's authority - have a right to fire, on people protesting against an upcoming nuclear facility in their region; I am speaking of Jaitapur - although this holds for POSCOs, Green Hunts, and other developments, MoUs and projects that mandates a democratic state to eliminate democracy and shoot down its own citizens who are not willing to sacrifice quite-so-much for national good.

So...lets look at some numbers and figures.

The figure below shows the sector wise usage of electricity in India, with a largest consumption by industrial, followed by the domestic sector.

The source of this figure is given here. Lets bear in mind, to a large extent India's industry, and the 'questionable' fruits of this industry, remain outside the scope of rural India and its masses.The next set of figures show the predicted growth in each sector, and the total projected increase in the demand for electricity. It is seen that industrial growth far exceeds in total consumption and growth the total electricity demand made by any other sector. The figure is taken from here.

The above figures further show that due to the steeper rate of the industrial growth, this sector will form an increasing component of our energy requirements versus the domestic or the agricultural sectors. Thus the large power projects, nuclear, hydro, thermal or otherwise seem to be largely and a growing requirement of the industrial sector in India. Another way of seeing this effect is that the projected increase in total electricity (by just under a factor of 4) over a 40 year period is dominated by the projected growth in the industrial sector by a factor of 4.

The MoEF document (Fig 6) shows that while the ratio of urban to total population in the country for 2011 is about 30%, the GWh/year usage of electricity in rural sector is at least 2.5 lower compared to the urban consumption. The same document gives a breakup of the urban usages where the largest growth in the domestic electricity consumption is projected to be from air conditioners and heaters, compared to lighting, microwaves, televisions.Thus all our key markers, the GDP, its growth, electricity consumption, are preferentially stacked to benefitting the industrialised, urban and upper class, consuming communities.

Now the question is 'Why should those least benefited by development pay for the most benefited class?' , especially when this payment required, in the name of the larger common good, is with individual and community life, livelihood, land, water, health? Just so that the  rich and needy-others may have more cars, air conditioners, glitzy malls, wider roads, airports...to name but a few? By whose rule is this right or fair? And when will the benefits to our larger, democratic numbers dictate the path of development chosen by the those 'elected' to govern - on all our behalf?