FACTS againest MYTHS V0L-IV-7-1997.pdf
Media
- extracted text
-
VIKAS ADHYAYAN KENDRA
INFORMATION BULLETIN
'97 VOL IV #7
No Clear Reasons :
The Myths of Nuclear Power - II
I’he history of nuclear power begins in the Second
World War with the West (particularly the US
and UK) racing to produce a nuclear bomb before
Hitler’s Nazi Germany. In 1945 the first atomic bomb,
Trinity’, was exploded in New Mexico on July 16,
1945. The following month the US used its new nuclear
weapons for the first time against people — at
Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Hiroshima bomb was a
uranium bomb while that dropped on Nagasaki was a
plutonium one.
Bomb manufacture begins in the nuclear plant which
produces energy in much the same way as a goal power
plant: heat is
produced which
boils water which
produces steam.
This steam passes
through turbines
and these in turn
^Jrive generators
wwhich produce
electricity. The difference is that in a nuclear power
plant the heat is produced in a nuclear reactor, the fuel
used is uranium.
establishment, and with good reason. To use civil
nuclear waste to produce plutonium for military
purposes (i.e. bombs) is illegal.
Over and above these, doubts about the safety of the
nuclear industry has risen sharply especially since the
Chernobyl horror.
The crucial conclusion to be drawn from the above is
that nuclear power and nuclear weapons are, in the
nature of things, inseparable; It is no longer valid to
hold on to the schizophrenic stand of being “pronuclear power, but anti-nuclear weapons”. And viceversa. Thus, a strategy for nuclear disarmament today
— apart from the need to de-nuclearise the mind — also
entails the abandonment of nuclear power, for the
maintenance of
‘peaceful’ facilities
would constitute a
standing invitation
to' reopen the
military option1. In ■
the meantime it is
also essential to
dispell some of the
major myths on nuclear power.
help fiqht cancer
!:
•; S T OP
i
[
NUCLEAR POWER
The atom bombs can be manufactured with either
uranium 235 or plutonium 239, the former is a man
made element not present in nature. Plutonium is a
waste product generated during the operation of a
nuclear power plant. Weapon countries have laid
emphasis on ‘civilian’ nuclear power to meet their
demand for plutonium, which is separated from the
waste, also known as spent fuel. This is an extremely
hazardous process, both for- the workers and the general
environment.
The real motive for reprocessing nuclear waste? There
is only one for it: to produce plutonium for nuclear
weapons. Yet, this is denied by the nuclear
i
{
j
MYTH: Nuclear Powerplants are safe and reliable,
designed and built to automatically shut offifand when
they fail and the public would suffer no harmful
exposure.
FACT : India has 9 operating nuclear power plants
with a total installed capacity of 1720 MWE.
Performance-wise, however, they are extremely poor
i.e. they are not totally safe. According to Dhirendra
Sharma2, there have been estimated 300 incidents of a
serious nature causing radiation leaks and physical
damage to workers. Between 1992-93 over 147 “unusual
occurrences” were experienced at various atomic sites.
This has been confirmed by the spate of failures, viz.,
❖
September 1989: the Rawatbhata power plant
near Kota in Rajasthan suffered a leak;
FACTS against MYTHS
7’97
I
FOR PRIVATE CIRCULATION ONLY
I
Page 1
❖ In 1991 UNI reported 4 deaths at the Nuclear.
Fuel complex (Hyderabad) and 5 more deaths
in 1992;
❖ January 24,1992 : the Rajasthan Atomic Power
Station (RAPs, Unit 1) ruptured and 4 tonnes of
Heavy Water was released. In August the same
year decontamination was carried out of the
whole project and in the process an undisclosed
num her ofcontract workers were exposed to high
doses ofradiation. InMarch 4,1981 the Unit was
damaged and had to be shut down. Over 2,000
workers were exposed to excess radiation and 300
had to be hospitalized. Ultimately, RAPS I was
refurbished and started operations in 1997 after
operating sporadicallyfor over a decade. But the
shadow ofinefficiency and risk still hangs heavy
over this unit,
❖
May 1992 : the effluent plant at Trombay
(Mumbai) was contaminated owing to leakage
of liquid waste from an underground pipe;
❖ May 13, 1992 : Unit 2 of the Tarapur Atomic
Power Station, a serious accident had occurred
resulting in 11.94 curies of radio-activity
escaping into the environment. The plant had to
be shut down. Some years earlier, there had been
more serious accidents.At least three people died
in the inner chamber with over 3000 workers
exposed to non-permissible doses of radiation;
❖
May IS, 1992: the Heavy Water Plant (THAL)
was gutted by afire in its "A “ stream. 7 contract
workers were injured and 2 seriously.
Information about the injuries were suppressed.
The plant was shut down for over a month;
❖
September 16,1992: the Nuclear Fuel Complex
(Hyderabad) had an explosion in which 3
workers suffered bums. A similar accident took
place at the Madras Atomic Power Station (Unit
I) at Kalpakkam in July 1984, soon after its was
commissioned;
❖
October 29, 1992 : H2S leaked from the
Manugura Heavy Water Plant and the Scientific
Assisstant (B), K. V. Prasadgot exposed to the lead
resulting in his death;
<• March 19,1993: a seriousfire in the turbine hall
the Narora Atomic Power Station (NAPs,Unit
I) occurred with both its Units suffering from
radiation leaks;
❖ May 13,1994 : the concrete containment dome
structure weighing around 130 metric tonnes at
theKaiga NuclearPlant collapsed. Concrete slabs
weighing thousands of tonnes crashed from a
height of 40 meters. The death toll remains a
secret. From the public safety angle, the dome of
atomic reactors serves as a check against
radiation leaks, absorb powerful shocks e.g.
earthquakes, and withstand missile
bombardments and internal high pressure;
FACTS against MYTHS
❖ In 1996 the storage tanks with radioactive waste
from the Cirus andDhruva reactors at Trombay
(Mumbai) developed leaks.
To conclude, it is no longer sufficient to parrot this
myth, ‘Nuclear reactors cannot blow up’ (like a bomb)’
or that they are built to automatically shut-off if they
fail. Just because India has not had a Chernobyl-type of
a disaster is no reason at all why there will never be
one. Questions of nuclear accident cannot be dismissed
by issuing simplistic and frivolous arguments.
MYTH : The global energy crisis with the ever-rising
demand for power makes nuclear energy the only
logical and enivitable alternative to a) bridge the
energy gap and b) serve development purposes.
FACT : First and foremost, there is nothing ‘logical’
to opt for nuclear power. It was and is a deliberate and
well thought out choice dictated more by factors such
as “international prestige”, the possibility of enrollment
into the elite Nuclear Club, the personal clout of
nuclearcrats like Bhaba,among few others, and the garfl
of one-upmanship of our perceived enemies. So, nuclear
energy is part of a conventional approach to energy'
planning that ironically is rapidly becoming obsolete?
Nonetheless, in this approach energy is treated as an
end in itself and the focus is on increasing energy
consumption. The main obsession is to make
projections of energy demand into the future,
invariably using simplistic extrapolations of past and
present trends. Business, they believe or hope, will
continue as usual. Such projections often forecast large
gaps between demand and supply. Thus, the pertinent
point in this approach is how to maximise energy
supplies so as to bridge the demand-supply gaps. And
in this search for supplies, nuclear power, which comes
in large reactor-size blocs, claims a justification.
However, what is required, instead, is not energy per se.
Energy by itself is meaningless in human society. It is
the transformation of energy into work that has meaniruK,
This is true.in all cases whether one considers burrii^®'
wood to make dal-chawal (for which women have to
trudge for miles) or using electricity, derived from
automic reactors, to light up a Pepsi hoarding. This is
the true indicator of development — not the magnitude
of energy used-. It is the level of services provided by
energy that determines the quality of life and the extent
to which basic needs (e.g. employment) are being met.
Furthermore, the amount that nuclear power provides
towards our total energy needs is negligible, merely
2.4 per cent as on March 31,1996. Even in the UK the
amount is merely 2% (20% to 10%) which means that
98% comes from other sources.
Finally, the Ministry of Non-Conventional Energy
Sources had identified around 40 such sources viz.,
solar, wind and tidal power. It is also promoting small
hydro-projects of up to three m.w. in the 9,hplan. Even
in electricity, a 2% improvement in efficiency of usage
7’97
Page 2
or reduction in losses can make
nuclear energy unnecessary. With
85% of the energy budget going
down the nuclear drain, such
genuinely
environmentally
friendly and sustainable approaches
to development continue to be
ignored.
MYTH : The so-called alternative
energy sources e.g. solar or tidal
power, biomas, etc., are impractical
and limited in terms of usefulness.
Their relevance is marginal, at
best.
FACT: This is merely propaganda
by the nuclear establishment and
vested interests to discredit
alternative energy paths as these are
seen as a threat to their goal of
wishing ahead with nuclear power.
"hat is, the plans to develop and
expand nuclear power sources
would be in jeopardy if benign
renewable and sustainable sources
would be adopted as viable
alternatives being considered more
and more today due to increasing
hazards of nuclear power. Little
wonder, therefore, the nuclear
lobby seek ways and means to shoot
down any such endeavors as the
following is an illustration. (See box
above)
;
In 1976,U.K.’s Department of Energy (DEN) had believed that i
wave power was the most attractive amongitneivaridus available ,1
alternative choices particularly wind power. Therefore the nuclear -;
industry in its interest boosted wind power as "a winner” (though i
not too strongly or it might itself boomerang on them if it became
the alternative to nuclear power) and discredit wave power.’ They ■
eventually succeeded in their objective and in 1982 and wind power ;
research was established as the top priority renewal. Many wave
power devices suffered as a result.5 For instance, the wave power :
device known as the 'Salter’s Duck’ developed by Prof. S. Salter of 1
Edinburgh University. The device is a canister which bobs up and '
down on the wave like a floating duck, the resulting motion driving '
an electrical generator. It received a highly appreciative response- 1
along with other wave energy devices by DEN which gave it the ‘
go-ahead for its development. But the pro-nuclear lobby were 1
dismayed and went on an overdrive to oppose the move.In a secret
report it persuaded a DEN’s concerned department that wind power *
had more immediate possibilities of being economic than wave !
power, and that the required reduction of the renewal research’ *
budget would therefore have to be met by shutting down wave
power research.
In the meantime, Gordon Senior was appointed with special
responsibility for the Ducks whose many conclusions were totally
reversed. Senior took up the matter to the House of Lords ’■
Committee and complained that his key conclusions were both ;
changed and even reversed.
Under, the facade of making a comparative analysis of the capital
, costs of various alternative energy sources, the method of .
calculating the same for the Duck was manipulated by the pro- J
nuclear lobby. Prof. Salter was never allowed to intervene to j
challenge these manipulations with his innovation.
The obstacles put in the way of the Duck and other
alternative energy sources by the nuclear lobby are
common and come up with contrived conclusions,
namely, that alternative energy innovations are
“unlikely to show any significant cost reductions...”,
Pte.
MYTH: The fear of nuclear radiation in small doses
is baseless. After all, there is more to radiation from
background sources than from nuclear power plants.
FACT : This is now a well-established disinformation
campaign by nuclearcrats to mislead the public.
However, nuclear power plants pollute the
environment by releasing radioactivity. This is
biological form of pollution and should not be
compared with chemical pollutants produced by other
plants.4 Radiation is invisible but it can pollute our
lives with effects far more devastating than any
chemical pollutant. The background radiation present
around us is quite different in nature and effect. It
cannot be compared with the radioactivity released by
nuclear power plants. It is, no doubt true that 50% of
the estimated exposure to radiation is from background
sources. It is also true that any radiation we receive is
FACTS against MYTHS
harmful and increased amounts increase the harm. A
careful balance has evolved through the ages between
natural background radiation and human cells.
Exposure to radiation is part of the aging process of all
living cells. If that exposure increases, the aging process
accelerates. Cells can be damaged, and if a damaged cell
is in the reproductive organs, mutations occur too. For
women especially exposure to radiation is of particular
significance. First of all, women bear the fetus which is
so highly sensitive to radiation. It is known that the
most damaging period is between day 10 and day 41,
or what is called organogenesis. To have a medical xray each year during this period would be the most
damaging. During the rest of the 299 days of pregnancy,
the risk to a fetus still remains high — 200 times greater
than to a man in his 50s. This leaves quite a burden on
the mother to try to protect her unborn child. Even
before a woman is pregnant, radiation can affect her
future offspring? Since the eggs within the ovaries of a
woman are formed at birth and do not change until
she reaches menopause, exposure to radiation during
that 40-50 year period can damage the eggs before
fertilization. With men, the sperm continually
reproduce and sperm damaged by radiation are rapidly
replaced by healthy sperm.
7’97.
Page 3
MYTH: Nuclear radiation is safe within permissible
limits.
rad given in one year over the whole body, to one
million people will produce 182 to 756 cases of cancer
in males, or 344 to 1306 cases of cancer in females”.
There are many tragedies implicit in all of these grim
facts. The related myth that the social benefits of xrays, radiation therapy, and nuclear energy outweigh
the “possible” health risks they might bring about. No
one, has yet attempted to convince the world that the
dropping of atomic bombs fits into the same category
of “social benefits”. A similar attitude prevails,
however, with the medical, utility and military
professionals, viz., paternalism. The general public is
kept uninformed and overexposed. Nature’s delicate
balance between cells development and radiation
damage is being tinkered with, all in the name of “social
benefits”.
FACT : First, there is no such phenomena as ‘safe’
threshold below which radiation is considered
absolutely harmless. Every atom has the potential to
kill. In the wake of the Chernobyl catastrophy studies
on the long-term effects of even low radiation on human
health are showing disturbing results on health and
the environment. But low level radiation, high level
coverups are'the order of the day of nuclear industries
the world over. Radiation in any quantity takes its
price.Again, reports and studies reveal massive
radiation damage around all our nuclear installations,
whether it is Juduguda in Bihar, Alwaye in Kerala,
Rawabhata in Rajasthan or Cherlapally in Andhra.
Widespread incidence of cancer, leukemia, thyroid
The so-called acceptable or "permissible limits" level
disorder sterility, infertility, distorted children with
is thus a highly bizarre definition of safety rooted in
genetic deformities — the list is long and technical.
the same nuclear mentality. In this case, a mind-frame
Evidence from Tapru, Kerala and uranium mining sites
of risk-benefit tradeoffs. Those who introduce
have been enough to demonstrate 'primafade' the harm
regulations have decideipS
of radiation engendered
that the setting of z
by the nuclear fuel cycle.
regulation is not a public
Animals and plants are
health function. So,
also susceptible to
regulations are not set so
radiation. Even the
as to protect public
smallest dose of ionising
health or the welfare of
radiation caused genetic
future generations. That
defects. According to
is
the
trade-off
experiments
that
underlying
the
included doses down to
0.1 rem (1 msv) per day
regulation.
The
HEAR NO RADIATION. SEE NO RADIATION.
regulation is meant to be
on mice proved this
a political statement that
point. All genetic defects TASTE NO RADIATION & STILL IT CAN KILL YOU
from X-rays or gamma
people accept the cost in
rays were cumulative either additive or proportional
life, health and damage to future generations in
to total dose. Even when the dose rates were lowered,
exchange for the benefit of the activity. The benefits
genetic effects were additive.Citing Dr. Sanghamitra
are economic and social. You have here a pseudo
Gadekar of the International Medical Commission on
science.7
Chernobyl, Humanscape magazine (July 1998) reported
MYTH : Nuclear waste management is not a seriousthat there have been an increase of stillbirths,
threat as it can be neutralised or made harmless ana )
miscarriages and death of one-day-old children near the
can easily be stored in an area as small as a football
Rajasthan Atomic Power Project. These have not been
field.
attributed to infections but have to do with deformities
or other birth defects. There have been 40-50
FACT : Even theoretically this is impossible.
deformities per 1000 births in the region. These
Radiation is a different form of pollution and
deformities also appear in animals. Solid tumours were
radioactive waste cannot be compared with any kind
seven times as high in the proximate villages compared
of industrial waste. This fact is fully exploited by
to the distant villages.
nuclearcrats who compare the two dissimilar materials
to their own advantage. For instance, it is possible to
Above all, there are now some indications that lowneutralise toxic wastes chemically, but this is not so
levels of radiation, below the so-called permissible dose,
with nuclear waste. No matter how, for instance, a
may be even more harmful than higher doses.6 With
bottle of radioactive milk is boiled or pasteurized, it
high doses, cells are killed. With lower dose, cells are
will never ever be fit for human consumption. The only
damaged and cause havoc to the body for years to come.
solution is to bury it underground in a concrete
Way back in 1978 a report of the US National Academy
container and hope for the best. Yet, there is need for
of Sciences had stated, “Women face a greater risk
immense caution. Some years ago, the Americans
because they, almost exclusively, are susceptible to
thought that the deep salt beds at Calsbad, New
breast cancer and are more likely than men to develop
Mexico, would be geologically stable enough for
•cancer of the thyroid”. The report also states that “one
FACTS against MYTHS
7’97
Page 4
Document: The Russell-Einstein Manifesto
In the tragic situation which confronts humanity, we feel that scientists should assemble
in conference to appraise the perils that have arisen as a result of the development of
weapons of mass destruction, and to discuss a resolution in the spirit of the appended draft.
We are speaking on this occasion, not as members of this or that nation, continent, or
creed, but as human beings, members of the species Man, whose continued existence is in
doubt. The world is fuH of conflicts; and, over-shadowing all minor conflicts, the titanic
struggle between Communism and anti-Communism.
Almost everybody who is politically conscious has strong feelings about one or more of
these issues; but we want you, if you can, to set aside such feelings and consider yourselves
only as members of a biological species which has had a remarkable history, and whose
disappearance none of us can desire.
We shall try to say no single word which should appeal to one group rather than to
another.All, equally, arc in peril, and, if the peril is understood, there is hope that they
may collectively avert it.
We have to learn to think in a new' way. We have to learn to ask ourselves, not what steps
can be taken to give military victory to whatever group we prefer, for there no longer are
such steps; the question we have to ask ourselves is :what steps can be taken to prevent a
military contest of which the issue must be disastrous to all parties?
The general public, and even many men in positions of authority, have not realized what
would be involved in a war with nuclear bombs. The general public still thinks in terms of
the obliteration of cities. It is understood that the new bombs are more powerful than the
old, and that, while on A-bomb could obliterate Hiroshima, one H-bomb could obliterate
the largest cities, such as London, New York, and Moscow.
No doubt in an H-bomb war great cities would be obliterated. But this is one of the minor
disasters that would have to be faced. If everybody in London, New York, and Moscow
were exterminated, the world might, in the course of a few centuries, recover from the
blow.But we now know, especially since the Bikini test, that nuclear bombs can gradually
spread destruction over a very much wider area than had been supposed.
It is stated on very good authority that a bomb can now be manufactured which will be
2,500 times as powerful as that which destroyed Hiroshima. Such a bomb, if exploded
near the ground or under water, sends radio-active particles into the upper air. They sink
gradually and reach the surface of the earth in the form of a deadly dust or rain. It was this
dust which infected the Japanese fishermen and their catch of fish.
No one knows how widely such lethal radio-active particles might be diffused, but the best
authorities are unanimous in saying that a war with H-bombs might possibly put an end
to the human race. It is feared that if many H-bombs are used there will be universal
death - sudden only for a minority, but for the majority a slow torture of disease and
disintegration.
/ :
Many warnings have been uttered by eminent men of science and by authorities in military
strategy. None of them will say that the worst results are certain. What they do say is that
these results are possible, and no one can be sure that they will not be realized.We have
not yet found that the views of experts on this question depend in any degree upon their
politics or prejudices. They depend only, so far as our researches have revealed, upon the
extent of the particular expert’s knowledge. We have found that the men who know most
are the most gloomy. Here, then, is the problem which we present to you, stark and
dreadful and inescapable : Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind
renounce war? People will not face this alternative because it is so difficult to abolish war.
FACTS against MYTHS
7’97
Page 5
•
abolition of war
ws will demand distasteful limitations of national sovereignty. But
what perhaps
nerhans impedes
imnec
understanding of the situation more than anything else is that
the term “mankind” feels vague and abstract. People scarcely realise in imagination that
the danger is to themselves and their children and their grandchildren, and not only to
a dimly apprehended humanity. They can scarcely bring themselves to grasp that they,
individually, and those whom they love are in imminent danger of perishing agonizingly.
And so they hope that perhaps war may be allowed to continue provided modern weapons
are prohibited.
This hope is illusory. Whatever agreements not to use H-bombs had been reached in
time of peace, they would no longer be considered binding in time of war, and both sides
would set to work to manufacture H-bombs as soon as war broke out, for, if one side
manufactured the bombs and the other did not, the side that manufactured them would
inevitably be victorious.
Although an agreement to renounce nuclear weapons as part of a general reduction of
armaments would not afford an ultimate solution, it would serve certain important
purposes. First: any agreement between East and West is to the good in so far as it tends
to diminish tension. Second : the abolition of thermo-nuclear weapons, if each side
believed that the other had carried it out sincerely, would lessen the fear of a sudden
attack in the style of Pearl Harbour, which at present keeps both sides in a state of
nervous apprehension. We should, therefore, welcome such an agreement, though only
as a first step.
Most of us are not neutral in feeling, but, as human being, we have to remember that,
if the issues between East and West are to be decided in any manner that can give any
possible satisfaction to anybody, whether Communist or anti-Communist, whether Asian
or European or American, whether White or Black then these issues must not be decided
by war. We should wish this to be understood, both in the East and in the West.
There lies before us, if we choose, continual progress in happiness, knowledge, and
wisdom. Shall we, instead, choose death, because we cannot forget our quarrels? We
appeal, as human beings, to human beings : Remember your humanity, and forget the
rest. If you can do so, the way lies open to a new Paradise; if you cannot, there lies
before you the risk of universal death.
Resolution
We invite this Congress, and through it the scientists of the world and the general
public, to subscribe to the following resolution:
“In view of the fact that in any future world war nuclear weapons will certainly be
employed, and that such weapons threaten the continued existence of mankind, we urge
the Governments of the world to realize, and to acknowledge publicly, that their purpose
cannot be furthered by a world war, and we urge them, consequently, to find peaceful
means for the settlement of all matters of dispute between them”.
Max Born, Linus Pauling, Perey W.Bridgman, Cecil-F.Powell^ Albert Einstein, Joseph
Rotblat, Leopold Infeld, Bertrand Russell, Frederic Joliot-Curie, Hideki Yukawa, Herman
JMuller (Issued in London, July 9 th, 1955)
radioactive waste disposal. Attempts had also been
made to make a facility at Hanford, Washington which
would be a permanent burial site for radioactive waste.
In both cases, uncertainties about underground water
movement made the sites geologically unstable.
Interim storage, as implied in the myth, is a convenient
ploy of the nuclear industry of passing the buck. For
generations and generations to come, all have to learn
to live with them. It is a burden that humanity has to
carry for thousands of years.
Every year our reactors generate some of the deadliest
waste ever generated by man. Finding a final resting
place for it is a problem that continues to baffle
scientists ever since it started piling up in the 40s.
Clearly, the problem of waste resulting from nuclear
development is not simply the physical problem of
accumulating radioactive garbage. It is a social problem
of the misallocation of precious resources according to
FACTS against MYTHS
7’97
Page 6
the logic of capitalism. Not the least'of such
misallocation is the waste of human energy and
the devaluation of life itself. Thus, if the
problems of safety, waste-disposal and public
unpopularity of nuclear power in the West is
any barometer to go by , then India might be
better off on the whole to leave nuclear power
where it does the least harm — inside the atom.
MUSCLE
ihybqiq
SODIUM 24
CAESIUM 137
POTASSIUM 42
IODINE 131 • ■
MYTH : Nuclear power is environmentally
benign and it helps stop global warming.
LIVER -------
COBALT 60
RADON 222 A
URANIUM 233 ▲
KRYPTON 65 • ■
'FACT : Not So! Nuclear power plants pollute
the environment by releasing radio activity
which is a biological form of pollution (See page
3). By examining the nuclear fuel cycle in its
entirety environmental problems emerge.
WHOLE BODY
NERVES
TRITIUM •
(HYDROGEN 3)
CARBON 14 •
PHOSPHORUS 32
RADON 222
SPLEEN
LUBSS
MAGNESIUM 26 • ■
POLONIUM 210 ▲
ORGANSIJ(M*n£
RUTXENIUM 106
The nuclear fuel cycle begins at the uranium
mine where the ore is mined and concentrated
into yellowcake which is a combination of
^Jranium235 and Uranium238. Miners working
these mines suffer all the hazards of those
who mine underground, and in addition, face
the problems of possible inhaling radio-active
Radon gas which dramatically increase their
proclivity to lung cancer and death. (Unless
very strict standards for occupation health or
the protection of workers has . been
incorporated such mines will be death-traps).
The other problem at this stage is the
radioactive tailings left behind in the process
of concentrating. What does one do with tons
of low-level radwaste?
The next, is the fuel enrichment and fuel conversion
stage. Safety and environment are no more in risk at
the enrichment/conversion facility than in most
complex manufacturing facilities, but the large scale
use of Plutonium as fuel changes that. And reuse of
Plutonium, especially in conjunction with Thorium
Bh fast breeder reactors is precisely the route India wants
to follow to synergistically beat its low resources of
Uranium. Microscopic quantities of Plutonium can
lead to cancer in the long run or immediate death.8
Also, enrichment/conversion plants can and do
provide the basic materials for nuclear weaponry.
India’s fuel facility is at Hyderabad. The nuclear
reactor, the next stage, uses the heat generated by fuel
fission to generate electricity, very much like any other
thermal plant does, But all similarities ends at that.
Environmentally, one has to worry about leakages of
radioactivity into the cooling water, into the working
areas and into the environment, thermal pollution due
to hot water, after it has done its job of cooling the
reactor, being released back into water bodies.
Furthermore, nuclear plants are likely to severely
disrupt the ecological balance of the region. Studies9
indicate that the temperature of the outlet of the plant
condenser would be around 40-45°C. Even a hike of
half a degree of Celsius in the temperature of sea water,
FACTS against MYTHS
TRITIUM
(HYDROGEN 3)
CARBON 14
YTIRIUM 90
RADIUM 266
CARBON 14
PHOSPHORUS 32
PLUTON 1IUM 239
ZINC 65 ▲
URANIUM 233
BARIUM 140 4
STRONTIUM 90
ZINC 65 ▲
IODINE 131 • ■
COBALT 60 • ■
RUTHENIUM 106 • ■
BARIUM 140 A
CAESIUM 137 • ■
POTASSIUM 42 • ■
PLUTONIUM 239 A
SULPHUR 35 •
KEY
A ALPHA PARTICLES
• BETA PARTICLES
■ GAMMA RAYS
How radiation affects human beings
caused by the discharge of secondary coolant circuit
water into the sea, can upset the marine ecology beyond
redemption, threatening the livelihood of the
fisherfolk. A pilot study done at the Idinthakarai coast
by the Zoology Department of St. Xaviers College,
Palayamkottai indicate that the rare marine species
forming the food chain of the area, will disappear even
if the temperature rose by a very little. Indian Express
(24-7-96) reported of severe dwindling of fish catch in
areas adjacent to the Kalpakkam Atomic Power Plant
in Madras because of the affect of radioactive effluents
discharged into the sea and consequently killing the
fish.
Finally, the related myth that nuclear power can help
stop global warming while it satisfies the demand for
electricity is propaganda from the nuclear lobby
(funded in the US by MNCs like Westinghouse) and
baseless to say the least. Nuclear power cannot stop
global warming. Nuclear reactors generate electricity
— only about 1/6 of greenhouse gases come from
burning fossil fuels for electricity.10 Research has shown
that a crash programme to offset carbon emissions from
coal-fired electricity generators alone would require
the construction of 5000 nuclear reactors over the next
three decades, most of them in the cost of $144 b. in
7’97
Page 7
capital expenses annually and electricity generation
costs of $525 b. per year. Even with such a construction
programme, carbon dioxide emissions globally would
still rise. In fact “...spending on nuclear power can
worsen global warming by draining energy
investments away from energy efficiency and renewal
energy. For each $100 spent on nuclear power, one
metric ton of carbon is effectively released into the
atmosphere, that could have been avoided had the
money been spent on energy efficiency. Finally, such a
nuclear construction programme would generate
100,000 tons of high-level radioactive waste per year,
with no resolution to the nuclear waste crisis in sight”.10
MYTH: Nuclear weapons are affordable and can cut
down on conventional arms and forces.
FACT: No nuclear country has accomplished this feat
but India can! Unless it is taken for granted that nuclear
weapons would, with absolute certainty eliminate war
between India and Pakistan, it is difficult to see how
expenditures on conventional arms can be reduced in
any significant manner. Fifty-three years down the road
such weapons have nowhere replaced or substituted in
any real sense for conventional weapons. Rather, they
have always been an addition, and involved an extra
cost over and above high conventional spending. In a
recent article11 Lt. Gen. V.R. Raghavan highlighted
some relevant figures for India, for such spending, viz.,
a study by the Ministry of Defence in 1985 estimated
the cost of creating a tiny “minimal deterrent” (of 10
to 20 fission weapons) at Rs.7000 crore at that time.
Dr.Jayati Ghosh of JNU estimates that in terms of the
domestic rate of inflation, such an amount would work
out to around Rs. 18,000 crore in current prices. But a
substantial part of the expenditure would involve
imports. So if the change in rupee value (relative to the
US dollar) is taken into account, then this would
amount to Rs.24,000 crore. If it is estimated that around
one-third of such expenditure involves imports, then
the likely current cost works out to at least Rs.20,000
crore. This relates to the total stock cost of a nuclear
weaponisation programme. It should be noted that
more than half of the cost of deployment of nuclear
arms is usually accounted for by non-nuclear non
missile components and also that a very large
proportion of such hardware tends to be imported.
This refers to the stock cost of creating a nuclear arsenal.
There is also the continuing cost involved in
maintaining the so called nuclear deterrent. An estimate
made in 1994 puts this at 0.5 to 1 per cent of GDP, or
at around Rs.8,000 to Rs.16,000 crores per annum. This
alone will increase our military spending by 25 to 40
per cent a year.In reality, these may turn out to be gross
underestimates.11
References
1.
Spence, M. Exporting the Nuclear Atom, Radical Science, #14
Free Association Books, London, 1984.
2. Sharma, D. India's Nuclear Estate, Lanchers Publishers, New
Delhi, 1983.
W
3. Reddy, A.K.N., Is It Necessary or Economical?, SEMINAR, # 370,
New Delhi, 1990
4. C.A.N.E. "Nuclear Waste: The Darker Side of Nuclear Power",
NAVA, Bangalore.
5. "Dirty Tricks by Decent Mens", Anumukti, #6, Surat 1990.
6. Koen.S. et al. Handbook for Women on the Nuclear Mentality,
Wand, Norwich, V.T., 1982.
7. [Interview] with Dr. Rosalie Bertell, Anubhav, # 8,1995.
8. "Is There a Case for Nuclear Energy?", PPST Bulletin # 1, Madras,
1982.
9. "Koodankulam Nuclear Power Project: Some Issues, E P W,
January 7,1989.
10. Bruno, K.Multinationals and the Environment, Third World
Network, New Delhi.
11. Communalism Combat, June 1998, Mumbai.
Acknowledgement We are greatfull to V.T.
Padmanabhan for his comments & suggestions.
; . "Nuclear Power
; . dangerous way of boiling water."
Facts Against Myths is a monthly bulletin offactual
information on a number ofdevelopment myths and
fallacies, etc, including information against
disinformation campaigns, propaganda and canards
spread by communal andfundamentalistforces.
BOOK-POST
Produced and Published by :
Vikas Adhyayan Kendra
D-1 Shi vdham, 62 Link Road,
Malad West, Mumbai 400 064, INDIA
a : 882 2850 & 889 8662
Fax: 889 8941
Email: vak@bom3.vsnl.net.in
Design & Layout: Kartiki Desai
Printed by : Omega Offset, 2/3, Emerald Corner,
Maratha Colony, Tilakwadi, Belgaum 590 006.
' 766 Community Health Gell
No. 367 Srinivasa Nilaya Jakkasandra
i
1st Main, 1st Block Koramangaia
I
Bangalore 560 034
Not viewed