People's power vs. nuclear power: Myths and realities
Praful Bidwai's article titled "India: People power vs. nuclear power" (October 17) contains many inaccurate and incorrect statements.
Kudankulam reactors do not draw millions of litres of fresh water. They will use water from a desalination plant erected at site. The temperature of water from the reactors discharged into the sea will be in compliance with the stipulations of the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MOEF), Government of India. This discharge will not affect fish catch nor will it adversely affect marine ecology.
A thermo-ecology study carried out at Kalpakkam and Kaiga stations with experts from institutions such as the National Institute of Oceanography (NIO), Central Electro Chemical Research Institute (CECRI) and several universities in the country did not reveal any adverse impact on marine ecology near nuclear power plant sites.
It is not true that the Kudankulam reactors are being built with in a one-kilometre radius of major population centres. Nuclear Power Corporation India Limited (NPCIL) keeps an area of 1.5 kilo-metre radius around the reactors under its exclusive control as required by the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) Code on Safety in Nuclear Power Plant Siting. The site satisfies other AERB stipulations.
Reactors routinely release effluents and emissions permitted by regulatory authorities. These are measured continuously. AERB reviews the results to verify compliance. NPCIL ensures that the limits prescribed by the AERB are not exceeded.
Bidwai scares people by describing radioactivity as "a regular poison you can't see, touch or smell." That we can't see, touch or smell radiation or radioactivity has not come in the way of using them in medical, industrial and research applications. That we can measure radioactivity and radiation accurately at extremely low levels helps to enforce regulatory limits on releases and emissions.
Bidwai notes that scientific studies covering 136 nuclear sites in seven countries showed some effects. The reference is to a paper by Baker and Hoel in the European Journal of Cancer Care (2007). It offered some evidence of elevated leukemia rates among children living near nuclear facilities. The authors described the limitations of the study and also referred to studies which did not show any effect. They referred to studies in which leukemia effect was seen before the nuclear facilities started operation!
Specialists criticised the study for its methodological weaknesses, such as combining heterogeneous data (different age groups, sites that were not nuclear power plants, different zone definitions), arbitrary selection of 17 out of 37 individual studies, exclusion of sites with zero observed cases or deaths, etc (Wikipedia).
Though the paper deals with leukemia only and no other effects, Bidwai claimed that the study shows "abnormally high leukemia rates among children and higher incidence of cancers, congenital deformities, and immunity and organ damage." Nuclear critics have a way of shaming epidemiologists and other specialists by cherry picking data and inventing conclusions!
Safe management of high level radioactive waste is a challenge. Scientific solutions to handle wastes exist. Problems are political and not technological.
Finland, Sweden and France have perfected the technology. India has developed necessary technologies and has made significant progress in developing advanced technologies to address the waste management issues.
The Chernobyl accident caused two deaths immediately and 28 deaths within few months. According to the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (2011), there were 15 more deaths due to thyroid cancers. Opinions on number of potential deaths differ.
Bidwai claimed 34,000 to 95,000 deaths, lot less than one million predicted by a Greenpeace supported report. He claimed that the numbers of deaths "are still climbing." Such myths cloud the reality that radiation scaremongers caused 100,000 to 200,000 abortions in Europe!
A nuclear reactor will not explode like a nuclear bomb as its fuel contains only less than 5% enriched uranium. This is a basic lesson in reactor physics. Bidwai's argument that a reactor is a barely controlled nuclear bomb has no scientific basis.
The safety review report from Russia, about which nuclear critics talk in conspiratorial terms, is similar to the ones prepared elsewhere in light of Fukushima. NPCIL and AERB, through separate task forces, identified many safety improvements. The Russian report has limited relevance to India. Indian scientists and engineers are keeping abreast with information from various sources; Fukushima gave a wakeup call in handling severe accidents.
Bidwai says that "there are perfectly sound, safe, cost-competitive renewable energy alternatives to nuclear power." Some of these attributes need critical examination; India does not now have the luxury to choose the mode of power generation. It invests in every mode. The government's programme to erect solar generating capacity of 20,000 MWe by 2020, equal to that of the then nuclear capacity, may be seen in that context. On a percentage basis, India now produces more renewable energy than Germany.
Ranked fifth in the world, India's installed wind-power capacity is 14,158 MW, three times our nuclear power capacity.
Recently, an energy specialist showed that under realistic assumptions, India will not be able to maintain a modest annual per capita power need of about 2000 kWh by 2070 by renewable energy alone; the maximum potential for renewable will be 36.1%. (Current Science, Sept 10, 2011). Fossil fuel and nuclear power will continue to play their role. He believes that hundred years later, India will have to depend on nuclear power only.
With the erection, commissioning and operation of the reactors at Kudankulam, Indian scientists and engineers will demonstrate how they can effortlessly absorb and master Generation 3+ nuclear power technology. This will enable the country to face the challenges in electrical capacity addition with renewed vigour and confidence.
Comments