The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Durga’s fury > Comments

Durga’s fury : Comments

By Melody Kemp, published 1/10/2007

Durga the demon Goddess walks through the factories of development. The Prime Minister wants to keep the fetish alive. The drug of choice is yellow-caked and cooked.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All
Melody,

It is clear from your article you don’t have much of a clue about nuclear issues.

First uranium 238 which is 99.9% of the ore which is mined is not toxic. The radiation levels emitted are not harmful to humans so living near a uranium deposit isn’t harmful.

Tawegian was bang on when he suggested it is infinitely more likely to be chemical poisoning the local people are suffering from. This can occur at ANY mine site if proper environmental safeguards aren’t upheld.

You quote your sole source as saying they dump the waste in the ponds at Jagdunda, yet you didn’t make it clear whether you were talking about waste materials from the reactor, or, far more likely, waste from the mining operation. The difference between the two is night and day.

India already has nuclear weapons, so even in your worst case scenario the point is moot.

Cheap electricity benefits everyone, contrary to your anti-capitalist slogans. Access to TV, radio and the internet are sought after across the third world.

Your understanding of Fast breeder reactors is poor.

You have failed to recognize that all nuclear materials have a unique signature which allows the material to be traced. Since India already has a functioning nuclear program, by selling them Uranium to use in their civil programs we haven’t changed the status quo, except to provide cheaper electricity to the people of India. Whether the gov’t of India passes on the savings is up to them.

Fast breeders require far less fuel than ordinary PHWRs. Your contention that the world only has 30 years of uranium is totally false. Uranium is one of the more abundant minerals on earth and conservative estimates based upon current gen1 and gen2 usage is more like 100years. When gen4 reactors come on line in about 30 years time they will use 1/10 the uranium of current generators. That means that the uranium can increase in price 10 fold without increasing electricity prices. At that level, minable uranium will last 1000s of years. Then there is thorium, which we also have plenty of.
Posted by Paul.L, Tuesday, 2 October 2007 11:54:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul, you may not be aware of the considerable research being done on internal radiation doses which underpins the debate over DU: which produces a respirable oxide on impact. Internal emitters have been found to cause DNA damage and thus terotogenesis or mutagenesis. Which is what is being seen in the tribal communities. The people eat the crops grown on contaminated land and drink the water. It is not the result of external whole body dosage.

Studies of soil chemistry as far as I jknow have not revealed anything that would cause the consistent defects that are found in the district. You may not agree with the Indian earth scientists but that does not mean they are wrong..

The big issue that I see at play behind all of this to-ing and fro-ing is the clash between western cartesian materialism and without wanting to sound like a new age flake, traditional cultures which value spirituality community and others ineffable factors. Most Indians do not want nukes..simple as that. They may want electricity,(from my years of field work enough to enable their kids to read and do homework) but that comes in many guises and all roads do not lead to nukes..
Posted by melody, Wednesday, 3 October 2007 6:23:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anyone remember the Bhopal disaster, where a gas leak from a Union Carbide plant killed up to 10 000 and more are dying all the time from lingering contamination?

This is double the number of all nuclear accidents around the world ever, and this is only one incident. Because it was not nuclear most people have no idea that it even happened.

Melody seems very confident to make statements on behalf of the indian population. Articles I have read would very strongly contradict her statement that most Indians oppose nuclear energy.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Thursday, 4 October 2007 1:13:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Accessing Greenpeace's site, listed below, will reveal the names and institutes of the 52 eminent scientists who have made the following expose possible.

Is Shadow Minister suggesting that the nuclear industry is more responsible with their operations than Union Carbide and other chemical industries? Is this why, when there is a nuclear accident, their usual spiel is fed to the public - "There is no IMMEDIATE danger."

Proponents of the nuclear industry, continue to insist that nuclear is clean and emits no radioactive materials from nuclear reactors.

Please advise me then why all nuclear reactor operators must submit emissions reports to the regulators, to show that their radioactive emissions to air (outside the reactors) are within the thresholds considered "safe" for humans and the environment.

It has been reported many times, that natural background radiation levels have significantly increased due to the anthropogenic radioactive emissions from the nuclear industry. Cancers have now increased in every nation.

http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2007/aug/science/rw_leukemia.html

"Chernobyl, Ukraine — A new Greenpeace report has revealed that the full consequences of the Chernobyl disaster could top a quarter of a million cancer cases and nearly 100,000 fatal cancers.

"Our report involved 52 respected scientists and includes information never before published in English. It challenges the UN International Atomic Energy Agency Chernobyl Forum report, which predicted 4,000 additional deaths attributable to the accident as a gross simplification of the real breadth of human suffering.

"The new data, based on Belarus national cancer statistics, predicts approximately 270,000 cancers and 93,000 fatal cancer cases caused by Chernobyl. The report also concludes that on the basis of demographic data, during the last 15 years, 60,000 people have additionally died in Russia because of the Chernobyl accident, and estimates of the total death toll for the Ukraine and Belarus could reach another 140,000.

"The report also looks into the ongoing health impacts of Chernobyl and concludes that radiation from the disaster has had a devastating effect on survivors; damaging immune and endocrine systems, leading to accelerated ageing, cardiovascular and blood illnesses, psychological illnesses, chromosomal aberrations and an increase in foetal deformations."

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/chernobyl-deaths-180406
Posted by dickie, Sunday, 7 October 2007 4:37:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul L - let’s examine your comments, that Melody doesn't "have much of a clue about nuclear issues.",
and that

"First uranium 238 which is 99.9% of the ore which is mined is not toxic. The radiation levels emitted are not harmful to humans so living near a uranium deposit isn’t harmful."

The Chemical Rubber Company Handbook of Physics and Chemistry states that:
"naturally occuring uranium nominally contains 99.2830% by weight U238, 0.7110% U235 and 0.0054% U234"

And there is ample evidence of uranium toxicity.

So, Paul L, you haven't checked your facts. Who gave them to you? You plainly didn't check their sources. Are you gullible or - what?

Melanie's reply, about DU toxicity is bolstered by comments at: http://www.mapw.org.au/nuclear/du/01ippnw.html

That policy statement notes:
" … The precautionary principle states that in the absence of convincing proof that a substance or process is harmless, the presumption must be risk. This principle applies clearly to the use of DU weapons. Furthermore, DU weapons indiscriminately contaminate the places in which they are used … [from] this perspective, DU weapons should be considered a form of ecological warfare prohibited by the Geneva Conventions [10]."

If we look at your discussion of "waste in the ponds at Jagdunda" (sic), and cut to the chase by Googling Jaduguda, the correct spelling, we find a history of "locals vs polluters", about Jaduguda uranium mine pollution, that is worth closer examination. See:

http://www.wise-uranium.org/umopjdg.html

One crucial point made on that page has to do with citizen demands, made in April, 2000; among them, that

"The Atomic Energy Regulatory Board AERB, should be made autonomous from the Department of Atomic Energy, according to International norms."

This struggle, between development and regulation, is at the rotten heart of the global nuclear industry. Furthermore, current US foreign policy towards Iran clearly suggests that a "peaceful" nuclear fuel cycle will always be an oxymoron.

Jaduguda is still a hot local issue: See:
http://www.nuclear-free.com/english/jaduguda3.htm

Is it the case, Paul L, that you don't have much of a clue about nuclear issues, beyond an eagerness to promote and/or invest in uranium mining?
Posted by Sir Vivor, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 9:29:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy