A few days ago, The Hindu carried an article titled “The real questions from Kudankulam” (editorial page, Sept. 14, 2012). Incidentally, it was published a few days after the brutal crackdown by the Tamil Nadu police on the protesting fisherfolk who have been opposing the siting of a nuclear power plant in their midst for over two decades now. The author of the article, a physicist with a reputed scientific research institution, questioned the agency of the protesting fisherfolk by bracketing them as “victims only of unfounded scaremongering” who were purportedly being misled by “educated purveyors.” The article claimed that the debate around Kudankulam has not been a “genuine” one and has been in abstraction, mostly around the “desirability of nuclear power” rather than “mechanisms” to make it safe. The claim being modern technology, maintenance and safety standards will make it “safe.” Notwithstanding of course the ideal scientifically “controlled” conditions vs ground realities. If one looks at the dubious track record of nuclear power plants across the world and its horrendous reputation of regularly exposing its workers and residents to dangerous levels of ionising radiations, the disconnect is pretty obvious.
In 1957, a fault in the cooling system in Kyshtym nuclear complex in Russia led to a chemical explosion and the release of 70-80 tonnes of radioactive material into the air, exposing thousands of people and leading to the evacuation of thousands more. Major accidents, which have killed, maimed and exposed large populations of worker and local residents, have been reported from various other nuclear facilities — Windscale nuclear reactor, U.K. (1957); Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, U.S. (1961); Three Mile Island power plant, U.S. (1979); Chernobyl power plant, Russia (1986); Seversk, Russia (1993); the Tokai-Mura nuclear fuel processing facility, Japan (1989); Mihama power plant, Japan (2004); Fukushima Daiichi power plant, Japan (2011) and the Marcoule nuclear site, France (2011). All these incidents and many more unreported ones including from India have obviously raised questions about the desirability of nuclear energy and any real possibility of it being “safe.” While environmental and health risks of radiation are now scientifically known, the magnitude of the impact of accidents such as a Fukushima or Chernobyl takes a long time to play out in a real world situation. The fact that in each of these places people have not been able to return to their homes, that their lives have never been normal again, and that they constantly live under the shadow of diseases and death makes nuclear energy patently dangerous.
And on top of it, the obtuseness of governments to disclose information related to nuclear, civilian or military, makes it even worse. Take for instance the confession by the Japanese government in June 2012 that it had withheld from the public important radiation maps provided by the U.S. Energy Department post-Fukushima. The information revealed that residents in an area northwest of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant were being exposed to their annual permissible dose of radiation within eight hours. This meant that these residents were not evacuated by the government to a safer place, an act that can be termed criminal.
In France, over 20,000-30,000 workers dubbed as “nuclear nomads” are subcontracted annually in the 58 nuclear reactors operated by Électricité de France S.A. (EDF) located in 20 sites which contribute 78 per cent of the electricity produced in the country. EDF subcontracts over 1,000 companies, who employ the “nuclear nomads,” sometimes of foreign origin, to do the dangerous maintenance, repair and clean-up work in these plants, exposing them to ionising radiations. In her book “Nuclear Servitude: Subcontracting and Health in the French Civil Nuclear Industry,” French social scientist Annie Thébaud-Mony has highlighted this division of labour and “risk” by subcontracting dangerous work in the French nuclear power industry. In the aftermath of the Fukushima disaster, over 18,000 workers were hired to clean-up the power plant, who were all subcontracted to do dangerous radioactive clean-up work. These men, hailed as “national heroes” by many, were actually local residents rendered unemployed by the disaster or were daily wagers from city slums. Since the 1970s, Japan has had a dubious track record of subcontracting maintenance work of reactors to outside companies which hire workers on a short-term basis who remain employed till they reach their radiation exposure limit (Nuclear Nomads: A look at the Sub-contracted Heroes by Gabrielle Hecht in The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, January 9, 2012).
In the case of Kudankulam, the fisherfolk have been raising similar questions. They have been asking to see the disaster management plan which, till date, remains a secret, even under the Right to Information Act. Given the inherent uncertainties of natural disasters, questions about preparedness to mitigate impact of calamities such as tsunami waves of higher magnitude are being asked. An inadequate reserve of fresh water for cooling as well as a lack of back up electricity are concerns that have been raised by people and their expert committee many times but consistently dodged by the government and officials of the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. Secrecy shrouds the fate of the radioactive spent fuel, its reprocessing and transportation. All these questions and more remain unanswered. Are all these issues a debate in abstraction? Is questioning the “desirability” of nuclear power not a valid one given the above track record? If this is not concrete, what is?
(Madhumita Dutta is with the Vettiver Collective in Chennai and a volunteer with the Chennai Solidarity Group for Kudankulam Struggle.)
Keywords: nuclear safety, AERB, KKNPP, Kudankulam, anti-Kudankulam protests, nuclear energy
Yes,the ordinary people of this country should accept the risk of running nuclear power
plants so that the well-to-do people and even their pets can eat and sleep in air-conditioned
comfort. Well,that is Bharat today!
1) We have come a long way from 1957. The technology has improved.
Govt is more concerned about public safety. And people are more aware.
2) Citing nuclear accidents is a weak argument. Accidents happen in
coal mines too, the recent one being in Chile where 20 miners were
trapped. Should we stop coal mining then ?
3) If Govt hides information, then institutional mechanisms to reveal
it must be made.In India,for instance. people can file RTI.
4)When the "nuclear nomads" come to work for maintenance they are
aware of the risk they face. Anyways, govt can train them or hire
professionals and not local people.
Nuclear power is GREEN , unlimited and abundant . India badly needs it . Those standing in water want subsidised cooking gas eternally . All of them are willing to fell trees . Accidents ? While they are in water 100 traffic accidents, dozen train accidents ,100 suicides and still some more kidnaps and murders are taking place . Politicians are nasty .
Oh please. Start up that reactor and pump 24/7 electricity into people's homes and they will stop complaining. Solar and wind are the future but some challenges remain. Till then nuclear is the answer. Coal is polluting and limited, hydel is unreliable. Unless you like power cuts, I suggest you support reactors.
... With due apologies , we can say for sure that how contractors carry
out any constructions meant for Government with so much greecing of
palms at every level . Moreover the area where the plant is located is
Tsunami prone area. Though Nuclear Energy is the only option for Energy
Starved India , we have to think twice about the safety . People say
that cancer is prevalent in and around Trombay due to radiation hazards
.
Every power source has it's pro cons. As every things in this world has both bright and dark side. Nuclear power is also not an exception to this rule .We have to weight it's pros and cons. Pros are all if every precautionary measure is taken and there already have been stress testing of this reactor. Govt and scientist have to be believed and similarly their intentions. For energy deficient state like TN , it would be no less than boon. It's boon for people as most of them were not displaced. Had it been hydro power or thermal power, where in one case it lead to huge displacement of people and other people affect by pollution caused by thermal power plant. Masses are driven by sentiments and often unfounded beliefs. There is always a possibility of worst . Motto should be hope for the best and prepare for the worst.
One should take a holistic view on any subject.Trying to define elephant by sensing the trunk will give you it's resemblance to snake. Every power has it's pro-cons. We are quick to take Govt into task if there happen to be power shortage, that affect our comfort. We are growing.The energy demand is also growing at much faster rate. Idea of big hydroelectric power plant faces people criticism as it lead displacement of many people and have environmental consideration . Coal power plant , needless to say about the effect of it .Even in case of Wind Energy, we hear about it's effecting the local weather. Research is being carried to find the truth. But as science student, i can say that a there is huge possibility of disturbance in weather because of huge warm of Wind Mill. I really doubt the good will of leader's of the movement opposing the nuclear power. They are just new born baby or newly educated about ill will of nuclear power
@Chaturvedi, Please don't use the royal we when speaking of inherently dangerous nuclear power. No one in his right mind would want this outdated and outmoded form of energy that deforms babies and sterilizes men. Most people I speak to at best say "we know it is dangerous but we need electricity. They are amazed to find nuclear gives us only 3% electricity and that we lose 30% via wastage. At a school where I was allowed to show the devastation caused by nuclear power in Russia and Japan, and the new alternatives available. the kids all opted for the new systems. Millions of people in the country DON'T WANT NUCLEAR POWER. A video was put out by Russia Today with an investigative journalist who stated clearly that diesel generator tests are FAKED and the earthquake tests are FAKED too. He said it would take millions of dollars to make a simple change in a nuclear reactor. No private company will engage in this business. Nuclear power only exists because of heavy taxpayer subsidies
If you protest just for the sake of protesting then definitely it will be termed as hypocrisy and anti development. But as long as the questions raised by the protesters are regarding their safety, the government should not hesitate in answering them and in taking the residents of Kudankulam under confidence before going ahead with the project. The questions and fears raised in the article are genuine and deserve to be answered. Although nuclear power is the need of the hour and a matter of national interest, but the poeple of kudankulam are the biggest sufferers in case of any mishap. We all want nuclear energy. But first let's be convinced that we will not witness another Fukushima here.
If the agitators had shown the same resolve before construction, nation's resource would not have been wasted. We can keep arguing on both sides till the cows come home. But should a power resource starved country squander away resources like this (after building plant worth several thousand crores..). TN Govt has decided to keep the New Secratriat and Anna Library built at the cost of several hundred crores idle.. I wonder whether even rich countries do that.
Even if one wants to agree with Madhumita Dutta, one is simply put off
by her poor skills of argumentation.
Every single sentence in this write-up is of the stand-alone declarative
type. The reader likes to be engaged and reasoned with, not told. Even
the person telling is the world's foremost expert on what's being told.
In this case, even that is FAR from the truth. Which makes Madhumita
Dutta's case even weaker.
respected sir,
to correct i would like to clear out some facts.
1. Marcoule nuclear site, France (2011) accident was not a nuclear
accident . it was an explosion in a melting oven which was meant to
melt the metal. this kind of accidents may happen in normal industries
like pot, steel etc. it should not be labelled as a nuclear accident.
2. let me ask you, how many casualities were there in three mile
island accident? ..none.. i don't want to compare the number of
casualities as an acceptance criteria. but lets be rational. we learn
from mistakes. we have learnt a lot from above mensioned accidents and
present safety guideline include all the necessary steps to overcome
such situations. they are out of question now.
i would like to mension here about the NASA'S flight in which all the
astronauts were killed including kalpna chavla. but that did not stop
NASA to send further missions. i mean we learn from mistakes and
correct them.
There is huge technology advancement from the time of the disasters cited the article but still accident is an accident. But it would be worthy to note that the accident has occurred in plant that has crossed its lifetime. Courts would have not rejected stay ignoring the facts mentioned in the article. For questions regarding safety measures please refer frontline issue dated Oct 08-21, 2011
Contributing to debate (as this article does) is one thing, but 'engineering consent' as Mohit Sen (TH, 25.9.12,op-ed) shows, is another. Sen seems to think that PR technologies/investments by the state are important in swinging public opinion, erroneously concluding that France has been free of anti-nuclear power plant protests.
No more badly researched articles, please
Why the protests are so much large and intensified after the regime
change in Tamilnadu. It is only to give troubles to the normal
functioning of this govt. There are so many nuclear installations in
France and all around the world which the protesters do not quote
except one or two where the accidents occurred. We need electrical
power for our students, patients, industries, homes, etc and touch
anything for electricity generation immediately one group will start
the opposition for it - dams for hydel power create silt, coal usage
in thermal power creates environmental pollution, nuclear power will
bring devastating catastrophe in case of an accident, etc. Repeatedly
we say, one billion of Indians suffer for want of electrical power.
Immediately generate it with the available infrastructures created so
far. For future needs all the arguments about the best method of power
generation can be started. We are terribly exasperated.
Madhumita, if you are reading this article, I would like to make a
point.
You have a long list of nuclear accidents, quite a few of which I
wasn't aware of.
Is it the case that alternative sources of energy do not result in such
accidents? I seem to recall that more people had died in accidents in
coal plants than in nuclear plants. I can find a citation if you are
interested.
Given that large parts of the country are without electric power and
that our inability to generate enough power as a country is one of our
biggest inhibitors to economic growth, what do you think are
alternative sources of energy we should look to and what are the rates
of accidents for these sources? It's important to not look at nuclear
power in isolation but in comparison to the alternatives.
Please Email the Editor