This Article provides information on the health effects of Nuclear Energy accidents in the history of 60 years nuclear industry.

1. 14.6.11
NUCLEAR ENERGY – HOW MUCH BAD IT IS ?
THE HINDU (13.6.11) Editorial " Radiation and Thyroid Cancer" is yet another media response based on ill informed and biased "knowledge", driven by the general fear psychosis of unknown threat.
The study cited in the Editorial on Chernobyl accident is a very narrow one. For a comprehensive study of people involving all the 240,000 liquidators, 116,000 highly exposed evacuees and the 270,000 residents of the Strictly Controlled Zone around the Chernobyl Reactor, please see the Links given below. These are the reports of studies conducted by independent scientists on behalf of World Health Organisation and Chernobyl Forum.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs303/en/index.html
http://www.greenfacts.org/en/chernobyl/l-3/2-health-effects-chernobyl.htm#2p0
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Chernobyl/chernobyl.pdf
From these Reports the following are the conclusions on the health effects of the Chernobyl accident, which was the worst Nuclear accident ever happened and classified as Level-7 in the IAEA Nuclear incident Scale 1 to 7 :
1. Effect due to Acute Radiation Syndrome :
Out of the 134 employees and rescue workers who were exposed to the highest radiation due to direct exposure to gamma radiation of spent fuel and suffered Acute Radiation Syndrome, only 28 people have died due to the radiation effect. Another 19 have died. But these deaths are not attributable to ARS.
This is the most vulnerable group. Even then till date, the vast majority (106 out of 134 ) did not die of radiation effect. This is one of the conclusive proofs that radiation is not all that dangerous as spread out to be by the media and believed by innocent public.
2. Effect due to Radioactive Iodine (I- 131) intake:
Out of the 5000 Thyroid cancers detected in all due to intake of Radioactive Iodine among the children who were in the age group of 0-18 during the time of accident ( April 26, 1986), in the entire region covering more than 50 million people, only 15 have died due to the cancer effect. Rest all have responded well to the thyroid treatment and are out of danger.
The beneficial effect of non-radioactive Iodine ( I-127) intake in case of nuclear incidents, especially for children has been known for years and it was very well implemented after Chernobyl accident. The statement in THE HINDU that " these measures, which were unfortunately not taken after the Chernobyl accident, have been adopted post- Fukushima " is incorrect. Most of the children in Pipyat city near to Chernobyl were given Iodine tablet within 30 hours of accident. This has considerably helped to reduce the incidence of Thyroid cancer. In

2. fact, if the intake of milk produced from the cows in that region had been avoided, it would have still reduced the Thyroid cancer risk.
Please note, out of this 5000, some would have got thyroid cancer in normal course like in any other population even without the Chernobyl accident.
Also, the region around Chernobyl is a known Iodine deficient region. Hence, there was higher level of radioactive Iodine intake among the children at the time of exposure. Otherwise, this many children would not have been affected. For people like us who are regularly taking Iodised salt, this radioactive Iodine intake will be less and hence I-131 effect will be lesser.
3. Leukaemia and Non-Thyroid Solid Cancer :
Reviews by the WHO Expert Group revealed no evidence of increased cancer risks, apart from thyroid cancer, that can clearly be attributed to radiation from Chernobyl. There has been increase in the leukaemia case only among the 134 acutely exposed liquidators. From the studies of Japanese Atomic Bomb survivors ( Hiroshima & Nagasaki), it has been concluded that the majority of cancer should have appeared by now, after about 20 years of radiation exposure. So, there is very little scope for further development of Leukaemia and solid cancer.
4. What about long term Effects?
Now that 25 years have elapsed since the accident. Totally only 43 ( 28 + 15 ) people have died of cancer caused by the accident. The next question is, how many more will die premature (it could be even 1 month !) due to the radiation caused by this accident ? It has been estimated that there will be about 5000 people among the 626,000 people referred above, who may eventually die of cancer caused by this accident. It represents about 3-4% increase than normal.
Among the 5 million people who were living in Belarus region which had Cesium deposition of 37 KBq per square meter, an additional cancer death of about 5000 had been predicted based on scientific model. This represents an increase of 0.6% over the normal value. The effect in all other areas including Europe and Russian Federation will naturally be much smaller due to very low levels of radiation dose received.
Please note, these are only probabilities and not conclusive. However there is absolutely no possibility for upward revision of these numbers (5000+ 5000) as evidenced from the no radiation effect on the 106 people who were acutely exposed.
5. What about other diseases like Cataracts, Cardiovascular Disease ?
There has been increased level of cataract in early ages. But no major health effects due to this.
The Cardiovascular effect has been noticed among the emergency workers who were acutely exposed. The risk probability is high among those who were exposed in the chest, affecting heart. Since most of the people would have been wearing protective shields, this risk is minimum.

3. 6. What about the Reproductive and hereditary effects and Child mortality ?
Given the low radiation doses received by most people exposed to the Chernobyl accident except those 134 people, no effects on fertility, number of stillbirths, adverse pregnancy outcomes or delivery complications have been demonstrated nor are there expected to be any.
In conclusion, so far in all only 43 deaths are due to the Chernobyl accident and in future - that is, after 25 years of the accident, about 10,000 people's death may be attributable to this accident. This includes those deaths which are likely to be accelerated even by few months than the normal life expectancy.
The facts and figures given above are all based on scientifically studied reports. These are the only neutral Reports which are based on authentic studies conducted on the entire affected population. These are Reports which are written without any prejudice to prove or disprove that Nuclear Energy is safe or otherwise.
There are thousands of other Reports like the one quoted in the Editorial which are subjective studies conducted to "highlight" the " ill effects" of Nuclear Energy and to prove that nuclear energy is unsafe as they have been fearing from childhood or as told by their parents.
Now, of late there are “experts” who come out with the concept of “ Internal ” and “External ” radiation as if it is not known to the Nuclear experts. They say, the damage due to the continuous irradiation of tissues by radioactive particles which are inside the body is more and it should not be compared with the radiation dose received by gamma rays externally.
It is perfectly correct and that is how the cancer probability based on the Iodine and Cesium intake are estimated. These two are the two main radioactive elements which will come out in the event of breach in the fuel clad. Rest all elements like Plutonium, Uranium, Neptunium, etc, which when go into the body stay long and give appreciable dose to the body, do not come out to atmosphere as they are heavy elements. Without knowing these fundamentals many argue that Uranium and Plutonium when they go into the body will emit radiation for 240,000 years ( as if he is going to live for 240,000 years !) and hence it also needs to be accounted.
Apart from the Chernobyl accident discussed above in detail, in the history of 60 years of nuclear energy, so far there were only 2 other major accidents including the latest Fukushima accident and these are discussed below :
1. Three Mile Island Accident:
There was some partial Nuclear Reactor Core melting in Reactor No.2 in the Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Plant, USA due to Loss Of Coolant Accident ( LOCA). There was not a single fatality. There was no major release of radioactivity except the release of short lived radioactive gases like Krypton-85, Xenon-133, etc and about 15 curies of Iodine into the air. It was classified as Level-5. There was almost negligible radiation effect for the human beings or for the environment. But still it became a world famous accident !
It is quite interesting to know how the Three Mile Island accident became so famous. There were three factors.

4. One, coincidentally just 13 days before this accident, a movie titled “ China Syndrome” had been released. In this movie they had described how a nuclear accident can bring in “catastrophic consequences”. They had postulated and made the general public to believe that a nuclear fuel core melting accident in a US reactor can penetrate the earth and come out at the opposite side of earth, some where in China ! And hence the name China Syndrome ! Even a High School student can conclusively say that it is an absurd imagination. But still the movie was fresh in the minds of UA public and hence the fear associated with this accident was amplified.
The second factor – due to the initial misunderstanding of the real nature of the accident by the plant people, they could not give the correct assessment of the situation for almost a day.
The third factor - due to the limited technical competency of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission(NRC) members, on whom the US Government and the media had more faith than the plant people, there was total miscommunication to the media and the Government. For example, at one point, by mistake NRC informed the Press that the radiation is leaking out of a 3 feet thick concrete wall and it is measured 100 times more than the allowed limit at a distance of one mile from the plant ! Actually nothing of that sort was possible at all and it was completely an editorial mistake in the press note released by NRC.
Similarly at another point during the course of accident reporting, NRC informed that the radiation level was 1200 mRem/ Hr at ground level at few KM away from the plant. But actually it was measured by a Helicopter hovering at the top of the Stack( Chimney) which was releasing the short lived radioactive gases. The radioactivity by these gases when they were dispersed out as a plume and when they reached the ground level, it was hardly above the normal back ground level !
Also there were conflicting directions given by the local government based on NRC recommendations- first evacuation - followed by stay in doors - and again evacuation of children and pregnant women, etc.
This kind of responses from NRC triggered panic among not only the general public, but also the Government authorities, including the Governor of the State( equivalent to our Chief Minister ) and the President of USA. Added to this, there were too many press people getting information from too many authorities, most of them being non-technical people!
In my opinion, if our AERB ( equivalent of the NRC of USA ) is made up of Non-Nuclear outside experts ( Non- DAE persons) in the name of making it an independent Regulatory Authority, a similar situation will happen in India during any such crisis situations ! For example, the Director of an IIT can never be a match to an engineer who has gone through the BARC Training School and worked in DAE for 25 years. For that matter, this is applicable for any Regulatory Authority associated with a profession – more so, in highly technical areas like Nuclear Energy.
But for these three factors explained above, no one would have heard of Three Mile Island accident outside USA. Definitely there would be no one from the current young generation of people, who all quote and talk about the “catastrophic accident” of TMI now, will know about it at all. Most people simply quote it since others are quoting. No one really knows what really happened and what the real consequence of this accident was!

5. 2. Fukushima Accident:
Firstly, it is not equal to the Chernobyl accident, even though the Japanese have declared it as Level -7, the most severe accident that can happen to any reactor, with widespread contamination with serious health and environmental effects. Actually, Fukushima accident qualifies for Level – 5 or at the max 6 only. This means, it is not as severe as the Chernobyl accident. Since the accident was developing slowly, there was increasing severity day by day and it was a cumulative effect of three reactor accidents, the Japanese probably thought that it is better to anticipate the worst and declare the worst level upfront. That is how they would have skipped the Level-6 while upgrading the levels one by one.
So far there is not a single casualty due to this nuclear accident. But more than 20,000 have been reported to have died due to tsunami. Many of the common people have mixed up both tsunami and Fukushima accident due to the media hype on the nuclear incident ignoring the real disaster associated with the tsunami.
So far there is no thyroid affected children who have been identified. The fact is that the quantity of I -131 which has been released into the air is much less, about 6 to 9% only, compared to that of Chernobyl, which had the fuel completely exposed to atmosphere and literally spewed radioactive material into the air for nine days. Chernobyl was a 1000 MWe reactor and the capacity of all the three reactors of Fukushima put together was almost same at 1317 MWe (439 *3).
Even the much talked about Hydrogen explosion in Fukushima needs to be proved beyond doubt, since the quantity of Hydrogen can not be so much that even after dilution with so much steam, it could have reached above the 4% concentration level for auto ignition to take place. Moreover, for auto ignition to take place, we need sufficient Oxygen. Temperature also has to be above 5000C. Where was so much Oxygen? The explosion of the outside reactor buildings in all the three Units of Fukushima could be possibly due to the simple steam pressure build up also.
Since the Reactor vessels were in tact at the top, the reaction rate of clad with the near stagnant steam would have been much lower compared to the total exposure of the fuel / graphite to air (Oxygen) in case of Chernobyl, which was like "free for all" ! Moreover, the I-131 and possibly small quantities of Caesium-137 were mixed completely with steam cloud unlike in Chernobyl, where it was all air. Once the steam cloud condenses, majority of this I-131 and possibly all Caesium-137 would have settled in few KM vicinity only.
Now, everyone knows about all that hype created by the media as if USA, Europe, India, China, everyone on this Planet is going to be affected by the fall out of Fukushima accident ! Today, absolutely there is no media to explain what happened to those “radiation clouds” carrying “so much “of radioactive substances ! They didn’t know, it was a simple water vapour cloud with some I-131.
But the fact remains that due to heavy flooding of the Reactors with Sea Water in unusual manners, there was lot of low level radioactive contaminated water which was discharged into the sea. Some water also directly seeped into the soil through the cracked trenches. However, owing to the very low quantities of radioactive nuclides involved (primarily due to the fact that not much of fuel was outside the reactor domain), and due to the slow development over several

6. days (Read: I-131 half life is only 8 days), the effect of sea discharge also would have been low only.
Only if there was substantial damage to Reactor No.2 at the bottom, and the fuel pellets / particles were lying loose due to the damaged Zirconium clad, then there is possibility that these pellets / particles could have been carried out of the reactor. But still the possibility of the particles reaching the sea is remote. If it were really “core melt” as confirmed by almost everyone, and not mere damage to the fuel pins due to Zircoalloy clad rupture, then this possibility of loose pellets / particles is also ruled out. The fused / melted / sintered fuel will be in tact at the bottom of the reactor only. It could not have been carried away by the water. This will be known in due course of time.
So, in Fukushima there were no casualties. There were no Iodine effects on children. No major contamination of Air. There was some contamination of soil and sea water in the vicinity only.
Still media talks of end of nuclear energy post Fukushima!
In fact, in my opinion, Fukushima accident is yet another proof after the Hiroshima / Nagasaki Atom bombs and the two major nuclear reactor accidents of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, that there are no such thing as “death of millions” “ with unimaginable long term effects ”, etc as postulated time and again by anti-nuke lobby either due to immediate effect or due to long term effects of radiation released from nuclear accidents.
Moreover, Fukushima accident has confirmed that the Nuclear Reactors can be safely designed, built and operated on any worst seismic zone. There was absolutely no damage to any of the systems / buildings in not only the 6 Reactors of Fukushima, but also in the 11 other nuclear power plants which were located in the east coast of Japan, due to the ground level acceleration caused by the earth quake. It was measured at 8.9 in Rictor scale. This intensity was one of the highest in the recent history and the acceleration was actually 15 times higher than the value for which the reactors have been designed.
It has conclusively been proved that all the three reactors of Fukushima operating at that time responded to the earth quake and instantly shut down with perfect precision, like the other 11 reactors.
It was only the tsunami, the off shoot of the earth quake, which hit the coast after about an hour, played havoc. The reactors had a tsunami protection wall which can protect tsunamis of height 5.7 m. But the actual tsunami height was 14 m ! It cut off the grid power supply, damaged the emergency diesel power supply and above all completely made the reactors inaccessible. This made the plant people completely helpless in the initial few hours.
Despite the best of their efforts, they could not operate the regular emergency core cooling systems in the crucial initial few hours leading to the excessive heating of the reactor core / fuel storage pond leading to the accident, the effect of which was discussed above.
With this experience, definitely, the Nuclear industry will make appropriate design changes and provide back up emergency core cooling systems which are immune to this kind of natural calamities.

7. A few possible systems could be, 1) Passive air cooling coils through which the primary coolant water / steam will pass through by natural circulation in a closed loop, 2) Buffer water / ice storage which will flow by gravity into the reactor which will last for at least about 10 days under once through mode, if required (with steam vented out continuously), 3) Use of alternate cooling media during emergency which will not react with Zircoalloy even at elevated temperatures ( possibly with no Hydrogen content), etc. These are tertiary modes of ECCS proposed, which will come on line by way of opening up of Rupture Discs installed in the Primary Coolant circuit en route to Boiler in PWRs and to Turbines in BWRs, in the event of all other existing modes of ECCS failing and consequent pressure build up in the reactor.
One thing must be clearly understood. In the event of loss of coolant nuclear accident, which is the only possible accident of concern to the public, the steam which is coming out of the core is not that dangerous. The worst possible radioactive nuclides expected when there is fuel clad failure are Iodine -131 and Cesium – 137, the majority being the former. Iodine -131 with 8 days half life is less harmful and it can be treated with little ease. Only Cs-137 is trouble some. But its quantity will be much less. With timely evacuation of people, use of protective mask and intake of Iodine tablets, the effect of these radioactive materials can be minimized.
This is not to simplify the issue. It is to high light the fact that, the much talked about phrases “ radiation is invisible and hence dangerous ”, “ nothing can be done about it ”, “ it is a silent killer ”, “ the scientists have no answer for this ”, “ it travels for thousands of Kilometers ”, “ it is carried by clouds ”, etc are all COMPLETELY FALSE and are borne out of either total ignorance or due to prejudice developed at young ages without knowing what it is - like fear for darkness and ghost.
Now, for a comparison between the Nuclear Energy and its nearest competitor, the Coal based Energy, let us see what are the actual human loss and injuries in both the cases. After all, no energy can be completely safe. It is only the ultimate trade off between how much good and how much bad. We have to see which form of energy gives more benefit with lesser effect on humanity and the environment in the long run.
Coal based Energy and Nuclear Energy in terms of effect on humanity :
During this period between the three nuclear accidents( 1979 to 2011), the nuclear energy has been contributing on an average about 15% of the total world energy requirement. Coal has been contributing about 60% - about 4 times that of nuclear energy. The rest is by all other sources like hydel, geo thermal, wind, solar, etc.
Since nuclear energy with 15% energy contribution had a total human loss of 43 in nuclear energy related accidents, it is but natural that the coal fired thermal power plant related accidents shall not be more than 172 ( 4 x 43). Coal mining which is one of the major contributors for human loss in the entire energy sector had killed much more than this 172. The actual numbers are mind boggling.
The world average of all mine related deaths in the 80s was about 40,000 per year. In the 90s it was about 10,000. Now it is hovering around 8000 per year. So, a very conservative number for the period between 1979 to 2011 for all mining related deaths is about 588,000 ( 40,000 x 10 + 10,000 x 10 + 8000 x 11 ). It is an established fact that more than 75% of this mining related

8. deaths are from coal mine related accidents alone. Hence, the coal mine accident deaths in the period under discussion is at least 441,000 ( 588,000 x 0.75). What is more, in US alone for which data is available, 678,375 persons have been injured in mining related accidents in this period. Out of this injured, substantial number would have lost their limbs.
Moreover, every one knows that the data collection and media coverage in mining industry, especially coal industry, is not as effective as in nuclear industry. These 588,000 deaths in mining related accidents are based on reported data. The actual numbers would have been much higher, especially due to non disclosure of mining accidents by China.
Further, like in any other industry / technology the initial two nuclear accidents have taken place in the initial 40 years of Nuclear industry while the technology was maturing with the lessons learnt based on experience. If we take the example of coal mining itself, from 1935 to 1975, in 45 years, in US alone 33,145 persons have died and 18,72,255 persons were injured. But now there is substantial improvement.
Please note, the quantity of Uranium mined is almost negligible compared to the quantity of coal mined. For those who need the numbers, one gram of U-235 generates as much electricity as 3 tons of coal can generate. Hence the quantity of coal required to get the same amount of energy that can be obtained from one ton of natural Uranium( with 0.72% U-235 and balance U 238) is 25,000 tons ! This is with the use of Uranium in Thermal Reactors.
If we consider the use of Uranium in Fast Breeder Reactors, where U 238 is totally converted into Plutonium 239 by repeated reprocessing and reuse, the quantity of coal required for each of Uranium mined is 100 times high i.e. 25,00,000 tons of coal ! Moreover, there are no dust problem, Methane related accidents, poisonous gases, etc in Uranium mining. Hence, the deaths related to Uranium mining are not counted for Nuclear Energy related accidents.
As for the 10,000 potential premature deaths expected due to Chernobyl in the years to come, please compare it with the decrease in life expectancy of millions of coal miners world wide and their wretched life inside mines. If we take into account of the various other coal based power plant issues like flue gas pollution, fly ash pollution, coal transport pollution, diesel / electricity consumed in coal transport, the deaths associated with the few dozen major boiler explosions every year, routine power plant accidents, etc, the number of deaths would have been at least 50 times that of this 10,000 potential pre-matured deaths !
There is another important factor which is over looked by many. And that is the small quantity of radioactive materials associated with the coal. According to the U.S National Council on Radiation Protection and Monitoring, population exposure from a 1000-MWe power plant amounts to 490 person-Rem / year for coal power plants and 4.8 person-Rem / year for nuclear plants during normal operation, the latter being 136 person-Rem / year for the complete nuclear fuel cycle. This is purely because of the fact that the flue gas and fly ash which carry the radioactive substances present in the coal freely come into public domain. Whereas, it is perfectly contained within the plant boundary in nuclear industry. Please refer :
http://drrobertbullard.com/blog/item/21-why-epa-should-adopt-the-strongest-protection-against- air-toxics.html
http://www.articledashboard.com/Article/Is-Steam-Boiler-a-Time-Bomb-/2440139

9. Coal based Energy and Nuclear Energy in terms of effect on Environment :
As for the environment, it is clearly the coal which is causing too much damage. There is no second opinion on this matter. It is the single largest reason for the CO2 accumulation and green house effect, leading to the global warming. It is causing enormous air pollution due to the emission of flue gas and dust particles. The disposal of Fly ash is a major issue, despite its use in brick forming. Environmental issues of open cast coal mining and the issues associated with the handling of over burden in the mines are all related to coal power plants. There are several such environmental issues, which have now been taken for granted as inevitable evils of coal based power plants.
Absolutely no such environmental issues in the Nuclear power, except the Uranium mining related issues, which are much less in magnitude compared to coal mining.
Some may argue, what about the radioactive waste disposal issue associated with nuclear energy. Technologies are very much available. It has already been demonstrated at many places. Be rest assured, it is a very simple technology as explained below.
The radioactivity of spent fuel dies down to 1/20 th and 1/1000 th of its original value in 1 year and 25 years respectively after taking out of the reactor. After about 25 years, the spent fuels are reprocessed to recover the balance Uranium and Plutonium which can be reused. For this, the spent fuel is dissolved in nitric acid. Uranium and Plutonium are separated and recovered.
The left out waste solution containing the radioactive fission products is concentrated till it becomes like a glass melt. For a nuclear reactor of 1000MWe capacity, the quantity of this glass melt that will be generated per year will be hardly 500 litres. This glass melt is poured in small canisters and these canisters are embedded in concrete blocks. These concrete blocks are then buried in abandoned deep mines with stable rocks. These blocks are monitored for about 25 years and are forgotten later ! Nothing is left out to worry about since almost all long lived transuranics are removed and most of the high active short lived fission products would have died down in the 50 years period.
The Technology of Nuclear Waste disposal is as simple as that. As long as you don’t know about something, it always looks as if great and impossible. But Nuclear Engineers already
know how to handle the nuclear waste and have already demonstrated in many countries, including India.
Still there are a few who will argue, what about the cost of Fuel Reprocessing and Waste Management. The cost of Fuel Reprocessing is more than repaid by the value of U-238 and Pu- 239 recovered and reused as fuel. The cost of Waste disposal will be about 10% of the nuclear energy cost per unit.

10. Why the media is against the Nuclear Energy ?
When everything is fine with Nuclear energy, then why is it that so much of noise is made against Nuclear energy through out the world by most media ? Why there is general perception against Nuclear energy among the general public ? There is some back ground information for this.
Nuclear energy was born with the Defence tag. It always grew in association with the atom bombs. So, there was always a veil of secrecy surrounding the Nuclear reactors. No media was allowed free access to any nuclear establishments, including those reactors which were purely for power generation.
Naturally this created a sense of inquisitiveness among the media and they started writing exaggerated stories based on half baked information provided by lower rung people in the Nuclear industry. Due to the secrecy code followed by the Nuclear industry throughout the world, no one from the Nuclear industry could officially deny these media reports and provide the correct information. They kept mum. This created enough room for suspicion among the general public.
The miscommunication to the media during the Three Mile Island accident, which was the first major nuclear accident to happen, reinforced this mistrust. Since it happened in USA, this mistrust among the people spread easily to the rest of the world, like a wild fire.
Now, of late with the importance of Atom bomb being pushed aside, the Nuclear industry is ready to provide all information. Unfortunately, since the general public had developed prejudice against nuclear industry during this period of silence, they are not ready to listen to the nuclear industry and believe the real facts ! They continue to listen to the exaggerations and false data given by the media. This is only natural psychology !
Also, there is something called “ perceived risk ” in cases where the risks are associated with non visible aspects, like current / ghost / darkness. Radiation is one such thing. Once some opinion has gone into the minds of people about this perceived risk, any amount of scientific data, logical reasoning and rational explanations is going to be of use in erasing that opinion.
The only way is to bulldoze these opinions and go for actions ignoring them. They will realize their folly later. If we listen to their voices now just because they are the majority, it is going to be a loss for everybody, not only for the scientists ! It is a bitter pill. It has to be swallowed by the decision makers. Otherwise they will be at fault. At some point in the history they will be
questioned by these very same media and the public as to why didn’t were they over ruled - after all, we don’t know all these as they are too technical !
After all no farmer accepted Ponni rice or IR 20 or Urea or Bangalore Tomato or Dr.Norman Borlaug’s dwarf wheat / rice when these were originally introduced in the 60s ! Government had to do cajoling, advertisement, special benefits, even indirect threats in some cases, to make

11. them accept. Any development, any technology had to go through this phase. This is history. More so, in the case of Nuclear energy due to the reasons explained above.
What about Non-Conventional Energy Sources ?
Whenever energy options are discussed, there are some people, who are mostly non-engineers, come up with the option of Non-Conventional energy sources. They do not understand what is the quantum of electrical energy we are talking about, what is the total potential of these Non- Conventional Energy Sources, what is the Plant Load Factors of these sources and what kind of environmental disturbances are in store in future due to these power sources, etc.
They will argue as if these sources are some new inventions and the engineers / scientists have special aversions towards these sources ! Just because they understand at least something about these sources, unlike nuclear energy, they support these sources. The three sources which are often brought up for discussion are : Solar, Wind and Bio mass. Let us analyze the details of these power sources.
The Solar Photo Voltaic power is so expensive that TNREDC has recently fixed the purchase price of one unit of electricity from PV Cells based power plants at Rs.18.45 for the next 25 years ! This much price is purely because of the fact that the Silicon used in the PV Cells has to be 99.9999 % pure ( it is 99.9999999 % for Computer chips !). To achieve this purity, we need to spend so much energy that it takes 5 years for the PV Cells to get back that energy ! It is always difficult to purify solids rather than liquids / gases. It needs very high energy.
Also, you need 12 acres of land for each MW of installed capacity for PV Cells. Since PV Cells can produce electricity only for about 8 hours a day and about 300 days in a year, the PLF is hardly 20 to 25%, as against 75 to 90 % for Coal / Nuclear plants. Hence, we need to install 3 MW of PV Cells to get as much energy as we can get from 1 MW of Coal / Nuclear power plant. This means, we need 36 acres of land to get as much energy as we get from 1 MW of Coal / Nuclear power plant.
Still any one wants to bat for Solar energy as a viable alternate for Coal/Nuclear power?
As for the Wind Energy, no doubt it is clean and reasonably cheap. But, are we sure that there will be no climate changes due to Wind Mills ? After all, monsoons are associated with the atmospheric disturbances and unequal flow of wind in certain periods, in certain specific places and in certain specific directions. Now, with the large scale deployment of wind mills in high wind regions, are we not slowing down and altering these natural disturbances? Will it not affect the climate one day or the other, if not today ?
Regarding Bio-mass, no one seems to have really understood about one fundamental issue. If we burn the biomass year after year and if we do not recycle it back into the soil, how will the soil regain its organic content ? How will the minerals taken by the plants from the soil get replenished ? How will the soil maintain its life ? Already about 13 million tons of organic matter which are brought to the urban centres of India every day, are not recycled back to the villages. This is resulting in continuous depletion of Soil Organic Carbon ( SOC ).
If we encourage bio mass power plants, especially those based on the agricultural residues like straw, husk, leaves, shells, etc, it will only add fuel to the fire. The only exception can be

12. bagasse, and that also, only the surplus left out after allocating for paper plant shall be burnt for power.
So, the worst that anyone can do to damage our Planet is to set up bio mass based power plants to get a few thousand MW of power, which is a pea nut in our total energy requirement.
Even if we accept all these three (Solar, Wind, Bio mass) as viable alternates, what are the quantum that we can get from all these three sources in India ? The total potential itself is hardly about 60,000 MW, which is about 15% of our installed capacity requirement 10 years down the line. Considering the Plant Load Factor of 15 to 25% for these power sources, it hardly comes to 2 to 4% in terms of energy generated.
Ten years down the line, we need atleast 4,00,000 MW of installed capacity as against the current level of 1,74,000 MW. Even if we assume that somehow ( how ?) we get all the funds required for installing the 60,000 MW of Non-Conventional energy Sources on priority ( Rs.9,00,000 crores ), where do we go for the rest of the required installed capacity of 2,11,000 MW ( 4,00,000-1,74,000-60,000/4 ) ?
The choices left out are Hydel / Coal / Nuclear. With hydel potential pegged at about 20,000 MW, the balance of 1,91,000 MW has to come from Coal and Nuclear.
Now, since we are aware of the advantages of Nuclear energy over Coal, we shall set at least equal target for both Coal and Nuclear, if not higher for Nuclear.
It is only the money and the people’s choice - not fuel ( thanks to Indo-US Deal), not technology, not manufacturing capacity, not Fuel Enrichment, not Reprocessing – which are in the way of Nuclear energy targets. If we permit France / Russia / US / Korea to set up Nuclear power plants, they are ready to bring in part of the investment in the form of capital goods. Rest of the investment, we can manage.
Earlier when the Indo-US Nuclear Deal was under discussion, some people were crying foul that the foreigners want to dump the old age nuclear technology on India. Now they are making noise in Jaitapur saying that latest technology is brought to India by the French company ! Obviously, these objections are totally sentimental and perceived risk based and not sensible enough to be considered seriously.
It is time that the people got rid of their mistrust towards the scientists and go for Nuclear power to save the environment from the ever increasing Carbon Dioxide effect and coal mining deaths.
So, all educated people like you, please think before accepting any adverse media report on Nuclear Energy. It is not at all bad as is portrayed to be time and again. The 2 million engineers, workers and their families who live hale and healthy very close to the 442 nuclear reactors operating throughout the world producing 3,75,000 MW of power is a testimony to the safety of nuclear power plants. Are they ignorant people ? Won’t they get much better jobs else where given their highest level of qualifications ?
Do you think a News paper Reporter holding a BA Literature or BA History Degree knows and cares more than a Nuclear Engineer (who lives with his children closest to the Reactor than anyone else) about the well being of his family and the public ?

13. I fervently appeal to all the readers of this Article to accept and spread the message, Fission based Nuclear Energy is the right choice for the next 40 years. By that time the Engineers / Scientists will find a suitable material which will have Super Conductivity near room temperature and hence we will have commercially viable Fusion based Nuclear Energy. Once Fusion reactors evolve commercially, fusion energy will be the clean and ultimate source of energy for ever.
K. PERIASAMY, M.Tech(Chem Engg)
Former Scientist, DAE, Kalpakkam, India