An article on Jaitapur nuclear project, published in one of the leading news papers in India today seems to be misleading the common man who is not aware of the radiation risks and nuclear power reactor safety. The project is not courting too many risks. The article shows the lack of in-depth knowledge of the writer on the subject.
It is very difficult to comprehend the real reasons for someone to delay the project causing avoidable delays in starting and completion of India’s infrastructure projects. India needs power for its development. Nuclear is undoubtedly the cleaner power as compared to coal and gas.
There are insignificant numbers of fatalities reported from incidents/accidents in nuclear reactors! There is absolutely no justification for over-protection. Today, any major power project or other infrastructure projects commonly consider and provide for seismicity, floods and terrorist activities while designing the plants/projects. Safe management, including transport of radioactive waste is well established and regulated rigorously in Indian nuclear facilities. France is one of the countries which believed strongly in the use of nuclear as the major contributor for their power requirements. They are the masters in the technology. There is some risk of using any technology for the development. Only ensure that the benefits outweigh the risks.
In a rough estimate, about 20 to 30% of the total projects cost goes for safety related systems to ensure safe operations of nuclear reactors. Just imagine how much money is spent to save a single life? Is it justified?
See this in comparison with the figure of 1,96,000 people in India were killed in road accidents alone in 2007 (WHO figures)! Let us not oppose infra projects just for opposing or for political gains.
Monday, December 20, 2010
Monday, November 29, 2010
Environmental clearance for Jaitapur Site
For the proposed ambitious power projects which are being planed at Jaitapur, Maharashtra to generate around 33,000 MW of power mix (nuclear share is 9,900 MW), green nod has come from the Ministry of Environment, Indian government. The ministry has stipulated conditions to ensure preservation of the ecologically sensitive Western Ghats. All other new power plants coming up in the coastal area coal-based and burning of the fusil fuel is going to generate Greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. Locally, the temperatures in the water body is also going to rise unless a good heat/hot water recycling system is thought about, and discharges from the plants are well-controlled by the authorities.
It is stated that the nuclear power plants are environmental friendly and with enforcement of strict regulation can be the ideal choice for production of “clean” electricity. In view of this, why not the Jaitapur site is kept reserved for only nuclear power rather than mixing the coal-based plants with nuclear plants at the same site?
It is stated that the nuclear power plants are environmental friendly and with enforcement of strict regulation can be the ideal choice for production of “clean” electricity. In view of this, why not the Jaitapur site is kept reserved for only nuclear power rather than mixing the coal-based plants with nuclear plants at the same site?
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
IAEA Board of Governors Elects New Chairman
The IAEA Board of Governors has elected Mr. Ansar Parvez, as its Chairman for 2010-2011 (one year mandate) at Vienna. Mr. Parvez is also serving as the Chairman of the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission.
The Ambassadors and Resident Representatives of Denmark and Ukraine were also elected as Vice-Chairmen. They are Mr. John Hartmann Bernhard, Governor for Denmark, and Ms. Olena Mykolaichuk, Governor for Ukraine.
Eleven countries were elected last week to serve on the 35-member IAEA Board of Governors for the two-year period 2010-2012. The action was taken by Member States meeting at the IAEA General Conference in Vienna. The newly elected Board members are Belgium, the Czech Republic, Chile, Ecuador, Italy, Jordan, Niger, Portugal, Singapore, Tunisia and the United Arab Emirates.
Other Member States represented on the IAEA Board during 2010-2011 are Argentina, Australia, Azerbaijan, Cameroon, Canada, China, Denmark, France, Germany, India, Japan, Kenya, the Republic of Korea, Mongolia, the Netherlands, Pakistan, Peru, Russian Federation, South Africa, Ukraine, the UK, the USA and Venezuela (IAEA News).
The Ambassadors and Resident Representatives of Denmark and Ukraine were also elected as Vice-Chairmen. They are Mr. John Hartmann Bernhard, Governor for Denmark, and Ms. Olena Mykolaichuk, Governor for Ukraine.
Eleven countries were elected last week to serve on the 35-member IAEA Board of Governors for the two-year period 2010-2012. The action was taken by Member States meeting at the IAEA General Conference in Vienna. The newly elected Board members are Belgium, the Czech Republic, Chile, Ecuador, Italy, Jordan, Niger, Portugal, Singapore, Tunisia and the United Arab Emirates.
Other Member States represented on the IAEA Board during 2010-2011 are Argentina, Australia, Azerbaijan, Cameroon, Canada, China, Denmark, France, Germany, India, Japan, Kenya, the Republic of Korea, Mongolia, the Netherlands, Pakistan, Peru, Russian Federation, South Africa, Ukraine, the UK, the USA and Venezuela (IAEA News).
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Naturally occurring radioactive element - Polonium-210
Polonium was discovered by Marie Sklodowska-Curie and Pierre Curie in 1898 and was named after Marie´s native land of Poland (Latin: Polonia). This element was the first one discovered by them while they were investigating the cause of radioactivity in pitchblende. Polonium-210 (Po-210) is a radioactive element that occurs naturally and is present in the environment at extremely low concentrations. Po-210 has a half-life of 138 days. It decays to stable lead-206 by emitting alpha particle.
Po-210 is produced during the decay of naturally occurring uranium-238 and hence is widely distributed in small amounts in the earth´s crust. Uranium ores contain less than 0.1 mg Po-210 per ton. In the environment, Po-210 is produced from the decay of Radon-222 gas. Although direct root uptake by plants is generally small, Po-210 can be deposited on broad-leaved vegetables. Deposition from the atmosphere on tobacco leaves results in elevated concentrations of Po-210 in tobacco smoke. There are tiny amounts of Po-210 in our bodies. Po-210 can be produced artificially in nuclear reactors by irradiating stable bismuth-209.
Po-210 is used in neutron sources (where it is mixed or alloyed with beryllium). It is also used in devices that eliminate static electricity in machinery where it can be caused by processes such as paper rolling, manufacturing sheet plastics, and spinning synthetic fibres. Static eliminators typically contain from one to tens of GBq of radioactivity. One should ensure physical security of these sources to prevent its misuse.
Due to the alpha decay, the energy released from one gram is 140 watts, and a capsule containing about half a gram will spontaneously reach a temperature of 500°C. As a result it has been used as a lightweight heat source to power thermoelectric cells in satellites and short-term space missions. It is a fairly volatile (50% is vaporized in air in 45 hours at 55°C) silvery-grey soft metal.
Po-210 is highly radioactive and chemically toxic element. As an alpha-emitter Po-210 represents a radiation hazard only if taken into the body. Direct damage occurs from energy absorption into tissues from alpha particles. It is not an external hazard.
Po-210 can enter the body through eating and drinking of contaminated food, breathing contaminated air or through a wound. The biological half-time is approximately 50 days. If taken into the body, Po-210 is subsequently excreted, mostly through faeces but some is excreted through urine and other pathways.
Po-210 is produced during the decay of naturally occurring uranium-238 and hence is widely distributed in small amounts in the earth´s crust. Uranium ores contain less than 0.1 mg Po-210 per ton. In the environment, Po-210 is produced from the decay of Radon-222 gas. Although direct root uptake by plants is generally small, Po-210 can be deposited on broad-leaved vegetables. Deposition from the atmosphere on tobacco leaves results in elevated concentrations of Po-210 in tobacco smoke. There are tiny amounts of Po-210 in our bodies. Po-210 can be produced artificially in nuclear reactors by irradiating stable bismuth-209.
Po-210 is used in neutron sources (where it is mixed or alloyed with beryllium). It is also used in devices that eliminate static electricity in machinery where it can be caused by processes such as paper rolling, manufacturing sheet plastics, and spinning synthetic fibres. Static eliminators typically contain from one to tens of GBq of radioactivity. One should ensure physical security of these sources to prevent its misuse.
Due to the alpha decay, the energy released from one gram is 140 watts, and a capsule containing about half a gram will spontaneously reach a temperature of 500°C. As a result it has been used as a lightweight heat source to power thermoelectric cells in satellites and short-term space missions. It is a fairly volatile (50% is vaporized in air in 45 hours at 55°C) silvery-grey soft metal.
Po-210 is highly radioactive and chemically toxic element. As an alpha-emitter Po-210 represents a radiation hazard only if taken into the body. Direct damage occurs from energy absorption into tissues from alpha particles. It is not an external hazard.
Po-210 can enter the body through eating and drinking of contaminated food, breathing contaminated air or through a wound. The biological half-time is approximately 50 days. If taken into the body, Po-210 is subsequently excreted, mostly through faeces but some is excreted through urine and other pathways.
Friday, July 16, 2010
Ethical aspects of radiation protection
Radiation protection is the professional field that deals with the protection of humans and the environment from the harmful effects of radiation. Ethical aspects of radiation protection are not much talked or discussed about openly. In fact, implementation of the principles of radiological protection i.e., justification, optimization and dose limitation should be subjected to and based on ethical considerations.
The very principles of radiation protection are based on the assumption that probability of stochastic effect like cancer induction is linearly proportional to dose without any threshold. This theory for low level exposure scenario is not based on sound human data but based on animal experiments. Now, whether it is ethically correct to apply this to humans?
In general, justification is a decision taken at government level (ex. Nuclear power) or by the doctors who recommend procedures involving radiation exposures, such as X-ray/CT scans. In the first case, risks and benefits are distributed unevenly over population groups. In the second case, can the un-necessary or possible over-exposures of patients in medical applications be ethically justified? How one can ethically justify exposures of temporary workers who are not under medical insurance or surveillance? Can some extra money compensate the risk of radiation exposures (risk to money trade-off)?
For optimization one needs the level of acceptable dose? Does this vary with the economic and social consideration of countries? Whether exposures exceeding dose limits, under any exposure scenarios, are ethically justified?
These ethical considerations are much more glaring in chemical, petrochemical and other industries where toxic chemicals, are routinely handled without much safety considerations. Comparatively, nuclear industry is better organized, regulated and safety record is quite satisfactory.
The very principles of radiation protection are based on the assumption that probability of stochastic effect like cancer induction is linearly proportional to dose without any threshold. This theory for low level exposure scenario is not based on sound human data but based on animal experiments. Now, whether it is ethically correct to apply this to humans?
In general, justification is a decision taken at government level (ex. Nuclear power) or by the doctors who recommend procedures involving radiation exposures, such as X-ray/CT scans. In the first case, risks and benefits are distributed unevenly over population groups. In the second case, can the un-necessary or possible over-exposures of patients in medical applications be ethically justified? How one can ethically justify exposures of temporary workers who are not under medical insurance or surveillance? Can some extra money compensate the risk of radiation exposures (risk to money trade-off)?
For optimization one needs the level of acceptable dose? Does this vary with the economic and social consideration of countries? Whether exposures exceeding dose limits, under any exposure scenarios, are ethically justified?
These ethical considerations are much more glaring in chemical, petrochemical and other industries where toxic chemicals, are routinely handled without much safety considerations. Comparatively, nuclear industry is better organized, regulated and safety record is quite satisfactory.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Carbon capture and storage (CCS)
It is reported that the technology, CCS is of absorbing the greenhouse gas (CHG) CO2 in some matrix at the emission points and store the gas under or on the sea bed instead of discharging in to the atmosphere is an excellent idea from the global warming and climate change considerations. The emission points are the environmental discharge points of the power plants based on fossil fuel. Alternatively, it is reported that the gas can also be stored underground in vacant or disused natural gas fields.
Parallel can be seen in the underground disposal of radioactive wastes. Risk of leakages is similar in both the situations. In an event of any leakage of CO2 in the sea water, there will be a change the sea water acidity (increase) destroying the marine life. Hence, as in the case of radioactive waste, the disposal in the sea bed of the CO2 canisters should be banned internationally. The only alternative will be as in the case of high-level radioactive waste, the well-sealed CO2 canisters can be disposed off in stable and deep geological formations without much risk of any leakages reaching the environment.
Parallel can be seen in the underground disposal of radioactive wastes. Risk of leakages is similar in both the situations. In an event of any leakage of CO2 in the sea water, there will be a change the sea water acidity (increase) destroying the marine life. Hence, as in the case of radioactive waste, the disposal in the sea bed of the CO2 canisters should be banned internationally. The only alternative will be as in the case of high-level radioactive waste, the well-sealed CO2 canisters can be disposed off in stable and deep geological formations without much risk of any leakages reaching the environment.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Indian nuclear liability bill
The nuclear liability bill, which seeks to cap the liability of foreign nuclear suppliers to a meager amount of Rupees 500 Crore in case of nuclear accidents, is in trouble in the Indian Parliament. Keeping in mind the comprehensive clean-up requirements in case of an accident, the actual liabilities may be over 1000 times more than the amount specified in the bill.
It means if things work out safely, the companies will sell nuclear materials and equipments and make money, and if some thing goes wrong, the Indian tax payers will have to bear the huge cost of cleaning up and take responsibility for the expensive medical management of the exposed population for long period of time.
Now that in the wake of the Bhopal gas tragedy verdict, it is very relevant that appropriate legislation with proper clauses should be in place to allow fastening of unlimited liability on the suppliers and operators of the plants who were responsible for disasters causing large scale area contamination and casualties to large number of persons. The laws should clearly address issues such as proper monetary compensation for the victims, pay for the clean-up of the contaminated areas and ensure installation of fail-safe safety systems to avoid major nuclear accidents.
It means if things work out safely, the companies will sell nuclear materials and equipments and make money, and if some thing goes wrong, the Indian tax payers will have to bear the huge cost of cleaning up and take responsibility for the expensive medical management of the exposed population for long period of time.
Now that in the wake of the Bhopal gas tragedy verdict, it is very relevant that appropriate legislation with proper clauses should be in place to allow fastening of unlimited liability on the suppliers and operators of the plants who were responsible for disasters causing large scale area contamination and casualties to large number of persons. The laws should clearly address issues such as proper monetary compensation for the victims, pay for the clean-up of the contaminated areas and ensure installation of fail-safe safety systems to avoid major nuclear accidents.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)