Anti-uranium mining, anti-nuclear movement in India

Mounting pressure against new uranium mining and nuclear power plants NewsPost Online by admin i 19 Oct 09 There is a growing civil society movement against the new uranium mining and nuclear power plants in India. The National Alliance of Anti-nuclear Movements (NAAM) is mobilizing citizens to protest against the reported decision of the government of India to take a quantum leap in installed capacity for nuclear power generation, from the current level of 4,120 MW to 63,000 MW by 2032.

“This decision is but an invitation to disaster” says activists.”Nuclear power, contrary to orchestrated hypes, is actually costlier than power from conventional sources like coal, gas and hydro. And once all the hidden costs are factored in, it would be costlier than even from renewable sources, like wind, in particular” says the NAAM petition that is swelling with citizens signing and endorsing the petition addressed to Ms Pratibha Patil, President of India; Dr Manmohan Singh, Prime Minister of India and Mr Jairam Ramesh, Minister of Environment and Forests, Government of India.

Mounting pressure against new uranium mining and nuclear power plants | Newspost Online

October 20, 2009 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | 1, India, politics | antinuclear, nuclear, radioactive, uranium

3 Comments »

Immediate Press Release: Memorandum to Indian Prime Minister.
14 December 2009.

Nuclear option is not for future generations!

Indian government had announced its long-term nuclear commitment to generate 40,000. MWe nuclear power by 2030. It had entered into Nuclear deals with seven countries, including the United States, at an estimated cost US$150 billion. Concerned scientists, engineering students and citizens have, in a Memorandum to Prime Minister who is also Atomic Energy Minister, asked the Government of India to re- assess the futuristic social cost of its ambitious Nuclear Power programme.

The memorandum referred to Bhopal and recent accident at Indian Oil Corporation’s Jaipur depot which destroyed millions of liter of petrol, diesel and kerosene. The fire burned abetted for 6 days, killing workers and destroying millions worth industrial property. But there is no Insurance Policy against Atomic accident. Had an accident occurred in an Atomic plant, no Foreign/American company would pay compensation to Indian citizens. Many post-Chernobyl (1986) scientific studies had warned us against Nuclear Power. The US National Academy of Sciences’ Committee for Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation and the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effect of Atomic Radiation had cautioned against long-term epidemiological radiation effects. Dr. Richard Mould’s study Chernobyl: The Real Story describes how tens of thousands citizens in Europe suffered the radiation effects. Contaminated helicopters, vehicles, buildings, machines, tools, roads, soil, trees, and forests had to be abandoned. “The accident at Chernobyl reaffirmed what an abyss will open if nuclear war befalls mankind. For inherent in the nuclear arsenals stockpiled are thousands upon thousands of potential disasters far more horrible than the Chernobyl one,’ concluded Dr. Mould.

The designed life of a reactor is only 50 years but it takes 10-15 years to build a nuclear power plant. There after for hundred years the entire structure, plant area, equipment and tones of nuclear waste material pose serious engineering and financial problems for their safe-keeping. According to the World Nuclear Industry Status Report, (August, 2009), the Nuclear Power is on “downward trend world wide” and “the largest nuclear builders in the world AREVA NP has turned into financial fiasco”. But the Government of India had offered to buy the Areva NP’s hardware to help the bankrupt French nuclear corporation.

Mr. Hans-Holger Rogner, Head, Planning and Economic Studies Section of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), says that ‘the arguments against the nuclear power deserve an objective assessment.’ And the German Nuclear Safety Act 2002 plans “To phase out the use of Nuclear Power.” Chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dr. Dale Klein says that no scope for revival of Nuclear sector in America. Editor-in-Chief and Head of the IAEA Information, Mr. Lothar Wedekin admits that “the future of Nuclear Power is uncertain but one thing looks clear – the next generation of (nuclear) plants will not be Made in the USA.”. (The IAEA Bulletin, vol.49/1, 2008).
Almost all energy policy had now shifted to Green Energy industrial research. The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimated “world wide energy demand in 2030” about 16.9 TW (terawatts or TW). And the Water, Wind and Solar (WWS) each can meet energy demand globally. Solar energy alone offers 6,500 TW. (“A Plan for a Sustainable Future, WWS by 2030,” in the Scientific American: India, November 2009, pp. 38-45, http://www.sciam.co.in) The Kyoto Protocol had, therefore, excluded nuclear power from the Clean Development Mechanism.

Remembering the Bhopal Gas tragedy, the signatories questioned the country’s preparedness to face any nuclear mishaps. The memorandum calls for a national debate on nuclear deals as no Parliamentary Committee had discussed the safety and reliability of Nuclear Power. It asks for inter-departmental discussion with Science and Public Policy ministries – Finance, Environment, Energy, Planning, and Health Ministry. Since the safer and economical Renewable Sources of Energy: Water, Wind and Solar are available to us, there is absolutely no necessity to commit the future generations to potentially hazardous nuclear industrial option.
—————————————————————————————————–
This memorandum is open for supportive signature campaign till January 1, 2010.
Please circulate it and confirm to include you among the signatories.
Dr. Dhirendra Sharma, Centre for Science Policy. psand@vsnl.net
“Nirmal Nilay”, Bhagwantpur, Dehradun 248 009. (0135) 2735 627. Mob. 989788 3741.

Comment by Dhirendra Sharma | December 15, 2009 | Reply
Some ten thousand signatures Memorandum would be submitted
to the Indian Prime Minister on 10 January 2010.

Comment by Dhirendra Sharma | December 16, 2009 | Reply
Memorandum to Indian Prime Minister.

Nuclear option is not for future generations!

Indian government had announced its long-term nuclear commitment to generate 40,000. MWe nuclear power by 2030. It had entered into Nuclear deals with seven countries, including the United States, at an estimated cost US$150 billion. Concerned scientists, engineering students and citizens have, in a Memorandum to Prime Minister who is also Atomic Energy Minister, asked the Government of India to re- assess the futuristic social cost of its ambitious Nuclear Power programme.

The memorandum referred to Bhopal and recent accident at Indian Oil Corporation’s Jaipur depot which destroyed millions of liter of petrol, diesel and kerosene. The fire burned abetted for 6 days, killing workers and destroying millions worth industrial property. But there is no Insurance Policy against Atomic accident. Had an accident occurred in an Atomic plant, no Foreign/American company would pay compensation to Indian citizens. Many post-Chernobyl (1986) scientific studies had warned us against Nuclear Power. The US National Academy of Sciences’ Committee for Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation and the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effect of Atomic Radiation had cautioned against long-term epidemiological radiation effects. Dr. Richard Mould’s study Chernobyl: The Real Story describes how tens of thousands citizens in Europe suffered the radiation effects. Contaminated helicopters, vehicles, buildings, machines, tools, roads, soil, trees, and forests had to be abandoned. “The accident at Chernobyl reaffirmed what an abyss will open if nuclear war befalls mankind. For inherent in the nuclear arsenals stockpiled are thousands upon thousands of potential disasters far more horrible than the Chernobyl one,’ concluded Dr. Mould.
Atoms for Peace and the Atoms for War are the Siamese twins cannot be separated.
Besides, the nuclear weapons are no more the Currency of Power. At best they are
Means of Suicidal Mutual assured destruction.

The designed life of a reactor is only 50 years but it takes 10-15 years to build a nuclear power plant. There after for hundred years the entire structure, plant area, equipment and tones of nuclear waste material pose serious engineering and financial problems for their safe-keeping. According to the World Nuclear Industry Status Report, (August, 2009), the Nuclear Power is on “downward trend world wide” and “the largest nuclear builders in the world AREVA NP has turned into financial fiasco”. But the Government of India had offered to buy the Areva NP’s hardware to help the bankrupt French nuclear corporation.

Mr. Hans-Holger Rogner, Head, Planning and Economic Studies Section of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), says that ‘the arguments against the nuclear power deserve an objective assessment.’ And the German Nuclear Safety Act 2002 plans “To phase out the use of Nuclear Power.” Chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dr. Dale Klein says that no scope for revival of Nuclear sector in America. Editor-in-Chief and Head of the IAEA Information, Mr. Lothar Wedekin admits that “the future of Nuclear Power is uncertain but one thing looks clear – the next generation of (nuclear) plants will not be Made in the USA.”. (The IAEA Bulletin, vol.49/1, 2008).
Almost all energy policy had now shifted to Green Energy industrial research. The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimated “world wide energy demand in 2030” about 16.9 TW (terawatts or TW). And the Water, Wind and Solar (WWS) each can meet energy demand globally. Solar energy alone offers 6,500 TW. (“A Plan for a Sustainable Future, WWS by 2030,” in the Scientific American: India, November 2009, pp. 38-45, http://www.sciam.co.in) The Kyoto Protocol had, therefore, excluded nuclear power from the Clean Development Mechanism.

Remembering the Bhopal Gas tragedy, the signatories questioned the country’s preparedness to face any nuclear mishaps. The memorandum calls for a national debate on nuclear deals as no Parliamentary Committee had discussed the safety and reliability of Nuclear Power. It asks for inter-departmental discussion with Science and Public Policy ministries – Finance, Environment, Energy, Planning, and Health Ministry. Since the safer and economical Renewable Sources of Energy: Water, Wind and Solar are available to us, there is absolutely no necessity to commit the future generations to potentially hazardous nuclear industrial option.
—————————————————————————————————–
This memorandum is open for supportive signature campaign till January 1, 2010.
Please circulate it and confirm to include you among the signatories.
Dr. Dhirendra Sharma, Centre for Science Policy. psand@vsnl.net
“Nirmal Nilay”, Bhagwantpur, Dehradun 248 009. (0135) 2735 627. Mob. 989788 3741.

Comment by Dhirendra Sharma | December 21, 2009 | Reply