Iran and the members of P5+1 consisting of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany held a fresh round of talks in Istanbul earlier on April 14 after a 15-month-long break and agreed upon the preliminary details for further talks to resolve the misunderstandings and come to a comprehensive and thorough conclusion. All sides hailed the talks as constructive and positive and said that there’s room for inclusive agreement in spite of some minor differences and disparities.

Subsequently, Iran and the P5+1 consisting of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany held another round of talks hosted by Baghdad on May 23 and May 24 to investigate, in depth, the ways of coming to a mutual understanding and realizing the agenda planned in Istanbul talks. This time, the two parties engaged in more serious and detailed talks and some theoretical differences leaked out; however, they again expressed hopes that the disputes might be settled in a diplomatic and peaceful manner. China and Russia praised the bilateral efforts of the negotiating parties aimed at clearing up the misunderstandings as Iran and P5+1 agreed to hold another set of talks in the Russian capital Moscow on May 18 and 19.

Now, some one week ahead of the decisive talks in Moscow, Iran seems completely resolved and enthusiastic to take part in a full-fledged, serious dialogue with P5+1 and put an end to the artificial, erosive controversy over its nuclear program which has brought with itself several rounds of biting economic sanctions and hard-hitting threats of military strike.

Iranian officials have signaled that they are ready to provide convincing evidence that Tehran’s nuclear program is solely designed for peaceful purposes and that contrary to the claims laid by the United States and some of its allies, there’s no military dimension in this program. At the same time, high-ranking Iranian officials stated that they are eager to participate in the Moscow talks with goodwill so as to allay the concerns of the other side and demonstrate that they are not after the failure of the negotiations. For example, on June 10 and during a meeting with the former president of the Austrian National Council, Werner Fasslabend, Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi expressed hopes that the Moscow talks will yield satisfactory results if the both parties abide by their obligations and adhere to the policy of mutual trust and respect.

Salehi cleared that Iran has always obeyed international rules and regulations and has brought its nuclear program under the IAEA safeguards and should be entitled to the civilian use of nuclear technology.

However, it seems that there are some individuals or certain groups who benefit from the failure of the nuclear talks and prolongation of standoff over Iran’s nuclear program.

As reported by Egypt’s Ahram Online, the U.S. ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro told a Tel Aviv security conference, “We don’t intend on continuing talks for talks’ sake. The window (for diplomacy) is closing.”

AFP, also, quoted an anonymous P5+1 diplomat who expressed his lack of hope for the success of Moscow talks: “I increasingly struggle to see a way where this doesn’t end in tears.”

The disappointing scene, however, was unfolded when the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Wendy Sherman who represents the U.S. in P5+1 immediately traveled to Israel after the conclusion of Baghdad talks on May 24 to brief the Tel Aviv politicians on the results of talks with Iran. Although the Israeli officials rebuffed the American envoy and refused to meet her and listen to her report on talks with Iran, the very attempt of her visiting Israel just one day after the termination of Baghdad talks was a portentous and ominous gesture which showed that the United States considers as vital the stance of Israel over Tehran’s nuclear program.

Another upsetting news was that the U.S. Under Secretary of Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, David Cohen, who is popularly known in his country as Barack Obama’s “sanctions czar” for his unrelenting efforts to convince Iran’s trading partners to curb their trade with the country, traveled to Israel on June 5 for negotiations with high-ranking Tel Aviv officials over the upcoming Moscow talks with Iran.

“The sanctions are having an impact on Iran, but I also recognize that more needs to be done. And we are intent on doing more,” Cohen told Israel’s Army Radio upon arriving in Tel Aviv.

“If we don’t get a breakthrough in Moscow there is no question we will continue to ratchet up the pressure,” Cohen told Haaretz. “The important point for the Israeli public to understand and for the Iranian leadership to understand is that if we are not able to make progress on the diplomatic track there is additional pressure that can be brought to bear on the pressure track,” he added.

Interestingly, Cohen is a member of the U.S. negotiating team in the P5+1.

At the same time, the Israeli media which have been long trumpeting for a much-loved war with Iran, reported with utmost hilarity and happiness that the negotiations between representatives of Iran and the UN atomic watchdog in Vienna which were held parallel to the Iran and P5+1 talks have failed and borne no significant results.

On June 12, the Israeli paper Yediot Ahronot claimed that the talks between Iran and IAEA in Vienna have failed to make any progress and caused “disappointment” for the United States and the “international community.”

“Lack of progress in talks between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency is disappointing and it shows Tehran’s continued failure to abide by its commitment to the UN nuclear watchdog,” it wrote.

The Israeli paper also quoted Robert Wood, the acting U.S. envoy to IAEA as saying that “yesterday’s outcome highlights Iran’s continued failure to abide by its commitment to the IAEA, and further underscores the need for it to work with the IAEA to address international community’s real concerns.”

Such unpremeditated and reckless statements in only one week to the negotiations in Moscow while Iran has expressed its readiness to engage in talks without any preconditions and on equal footings show that there are some groups or people who take advantage of a possible failure in the talks, and Israeli lobby dominating the U.S. Congress and mainstream media is certainly one of them.

Why should the members of the U.S. negotiating team travel to Israel one after another while Israel has nothing to do with Iran’s nuclear program and is itself already accused of depositing an arsenal of some 200 nuclear warheads?

Unquestionably, Israel is the first and foremost entity which will be content with a failure in negotiations between Iran and P5+1 in Moscow. They are afraid of the possibility that the nuclear standoff be resolved diplomatically, the sanctions on Iran be lifted and Tehran get the upper hand in talks and find its position in the region and the world fostered and strengthened.

The best policy for P5+1, if they want a progress in the talks, is to dissociate themselves from the Israeli lobby and take into consideration the mutual benefit of Iran and themselves. Of course a diplomatic and peaceful resolution to Iran’s nuclear program will be a win-win game while Israel, without any doubts, will be the only loser.

AUTHOR: Kourosh Ziabari
URL: http://www.intifada-palestine.com
E-MAIL: kziabari [at] gmail.com

Justice Shri K.G. Balakrishnan,
Chairperson, National Human Rights Commission
Faridkot House, Copernicus Marg,
New Delhi, PIN 110001
INDIA
Fax No. 23384863
E-Mail: covdnhrc@nic.in, ionhrc@nic.in, jrlawnhrc@hub.nic.in

Re: Tirunelveli: Assault and stone-pelting on Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant Protestors including women activists

Dear Chairperson, National Human Rights Commission,

I am a Human rights activist and journalist. I am sharing my deep concern regarding   the attack and stone pelting on the representatives of Peoples Movement against Nuclear Energy including 15 women.

Incident:
A civil group spearheading the protest against the Koodankulam Nuclear Power Project (KNPP) called off talks with the central government-appointed experts’ panel, after the former’s members were assaulted in Tirunelveli District of Tamil Nadu on January 31, 2012 when they were on their way for the talks.

According to the information received, the Central government-appointed expert group was scheduled to have its fourth round of talks on 31st January 2012 (Tuesday) at 11.00 a.m. in the District Collector’s office, Tirunelveli.  The representatives of Peoples Movement against Nuclear Energy (PMANE) – Pushparayan and Jesuraj and 20 women accompanying them have been attacked by Goondas (hired thugs) near Tirunelveli Collecotrate on their way to attend talks with the Central Government Expert Panel. The women who tried to shield the PMANE representatives were also beaten up and they are in hospital now. The goons were said to have been hired by some local Congress leaders.

The activists came to meet the Central government-appointed expert group for the fourth round of talks but after stones were pelted at them, they decided to boycott the meeting. The Koodankulam Anti Nuclear protest has stood out as a symbol of non-violent protest. This move of attacking movement leaders is a strategy of trying to create tension and turn the movement violent. The PMANE movement has withdrawn from the talks after the incident which gave clear indications of the Central Government’s backdoor working. Protests are happening in Tirunelveli and other southern Tamilnadu districts condemning the attacks.

It is note-worthy that for the past three months the activists have been said to receive threats from the goons of Congress Party. On the eve of the crucial talks, anti-nuclear activists had said that their representatives would not engage in any dialogue, despite promising their attendance.

Additional Information:

The coordinator of the People’s Movement Against Nuclear Energy (PMANE) stated “We have no faith in the talks. None of the questions we had asked were answered and the documents we had asked for were not furnished. Meanwhile, our members have been assaulted when they had gone to participate in the talks. We are calling off the talks”.
A representative of the protestors in the expert panel formed by the State Government said that they would go to the meeting but would not engage in any dialogue with them. They also demanded that they needed to talk to the people living within a radius of 30 km (around the Plant) and to the expert panel.

The anti-KNPP agitators’ intensifying their stir, has come a day before the fourth and possibly, the final round of talks between the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) nominated panel of experts and the state government’s committee, slated to be held in Tirunelveli on Tuesday, as part of a long-drawn exercise to dispel local people’s fears about KNPP.

It was expected that M Pushparayan, convener of Coastal People’s Federation and M P Jesuraj would represent the anti-nuke protestors as part of the state panel in the talks with the Central panel headed by E Muthunayagam. PMANE had initially protested that they would boycott the talks, but changed the stance.

The previous three rounds of talks between the panels held on the 7th and 18th of November and 15th of December 2011 had failed to make any headway towards commissioning of the first unit at the KNPP as local people protesting against the project were not satisfied with the answers given by the expert group to their queries.
The Central Government Panel has failed to answer most of the questions raised by the movements own panel and whatever answers given, were all unsatisfactory. Moreover the central panel and central government have also refused to meet the movement’s expert panel and have an open discussion.

The Indo-Russian joint venture ran into trouble with activists and local people going on protest citing safety concerns in the wake of the Fukushima Disaster in Japan early last year. Simultaneously, pressure from various quarters including industry is mounting on Tamil Nadu government and the Central team to resolve the deadlock as the state’s power situation is taking a turn for the worse. We are concerned that the attack on the activists was pre-planned and aimed at suppressing their genuine voices of protest against the Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant in Tamil Nadu.

Appeal
I, therefore, urge you to immediately take necessary steps to

1. Guarantee in all circumstances the physical and psychological integrity of all the activists of anti-Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant Campaign who were protesting in a peaceful manner;

2. Initiate a departmental enquiry against the perpetrators who pelted stones and attacked the group of activists which included women and those behind them;

3. Conform to the provisions of the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, adopted by the UN General Assembly on December 9, 1998, especially:

• its Article 1, which states that “everyone has the right, individually and in association with others, to promote and to strive for the protection and realisation of human rights and fundamental freedoms at the national and international levels”;
• and its Article 12.2, which states that “the State shall take all necessary measures to ensure the protection by the competent authorities of everyone, individually and in association with others, against any violence, threats, retaliation, de facto or de jure adverse discrimination, pressure or any other arbitrary action as a consequence of his or her legitimate exercise of the rights referred to in the present Declaration”;

4. Ensure in all circumstances respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in accordance with international human rights standards and international instruments ratified by India.

Looking forward to your immediate action in this regard.

AUTHOR: William Nicholas Gomes
URL: www.williamgomes.org
E-MAIL: williamgomes.org [at] gmail.com

Whereas the whole world is extending its sympathy and support to the people in Japan, there are also many lessons for poor countries like India with dense population. A crucial lesson has been the folly of the misconception that the over reliance on modern technology alone can ensure safety, security and welfare of the masses even in a developed country such as Japan.

While the nuclear emergency caused by Tsunami/earthquake has thrown up many critical issues even in a safety and quality conscious country like Japan, it is very hard to imagine that the powerful and secretive nuclear power sector in our country (a country generally associated with corrupt and poor quality practices) has taken all the essential and adequate precautions to avoid such nuclear emergencies. It is even more critical to ask ourselves whether a densely populated and resource constrained country like ours can afford such a nuclear emergency?

While it is clear as to why Japan has put so much importance for the safety and reliability of its nuclear power plants (it is relying on its nuclear power industry for about 30% of its total electricity supply), can we assume similar checks and balances in India where the installed capacity of nuclear power is only about 2.8%?

In this background and with the potential for nuclear catastrophe our society has to seek answer to a credible question: whether the planned addition of more than 60,000 MW of nuclear power by 2031-32 (as per Integrated Energy Policy, IEP) is in the interest of our society?. It is also the high time that the proposed Jaitapur nuclear power park in Maharastra, and similar nuclear power parks in West Bengal, Andhra Pradesh and Gujarath are put to such a critical and objective analysis. A document by DAE (A Strategy for the Growth of Electricity in India: http://www.dae.gov.in/publ/doc10/index.htm) indicates the aspiration of the department to increase the nuclear power capacity to 274,560 MW by 2052. It is very unlikely that the huge risks involved in such a large number of nuclear reactors in the form of vast nuclear power parks can be acceptable to a densely populated and poor country like ours.

The other question that needs to be answered honestly is that in the backdrop of all the associated high risks, are nuclear power plants essential to our society? Can we not manage the legitimate demand for electricity from so many other benign options? It is very relevant here to note that our society will not need many more conventional power plants such as nuclear, coal based or dam based hydro power plants to meet the true demand for electricity of all sections.

In this context one would expect environment ministry and the Union Government to take serious note of the nuclear emergencies in Japan, objectively learn from the situation there, and take people friendly and environment friendly decisions towards the welfare of the masses. Since our country has not committed itself yet to rely on nuclear power technology to meet substantial percentage of its electrical energy (unlike the case of Japan), there is a huge scope for our society to correct the past mistake of investing massively in the nuclear power sector.

Countries like Australia and New Zealand will never have to worry about such nuclear emergencies, because they have clearly stated “NO” to nuclear power. Our society will do well to notice that since the nuclear emergency in Japan, the governments of Germany and Switzerland are reported to be reviewing their nuclear power plans. European Union also is reported to be reviewing the safety of so many nuclear power plants spread all over Europe. We have to seriously consider the consequences of nuclear emergencies in our densely populated country with low literacy levels.

There is an urgent need to address a fundamental set of issues. Do we need nuclear power plants to meet the legitimate electricity demand of our masses? If so, how many are needed? If they are safe and economically viable, as being claimed by the nuclear establishment, why not increase its share of the total installed power capacity as in France? Who can guarantee us of the required amount of fissile material required for the economic life of these plants? How are we going to ensure the safety of the plants and the spent fuel for thousands of years? Shall we not ponder whether it is fair to pass on all these costs and risks to the future generations, while the present generation may get the meager benefit of electricity at a very low Plant Load Factors (as is the record for our nuclear power plants)? Why have we not objectively considered very many benign alternatives to meet the electricity demand of our masses?

Since each of the three techno-economic super powers (USA, Russia and Japan) has experienced the nuclear emergency from their power plants, the very wisdom of relying on nuclear power technology is being increasingly questioned. If such resource rich and knowledgeable communities could not avert nuclear emergencies, can our densely populated and ill-prepared society ever hope to avert the possible human catastrophe from a nuclear mishap?

In this regard the larger issues of nuclear power technology deserve detailed attention in order to ensure that society’s overall welfare is protected.

IEP admits that India is poorly endowed with Uranium, and that the known sources within the country can supply only about 10,000 MW of power capacity based on Pressurised Heavy Water Reactor (PHWR). It also say that because of low grade Uranium ore available in the country, Indian nuclear fuel costs at least 3 times that of international supplies. It adds that the substantial Thorium reserve in the country should be harnessed by converting it into fissile material through three stage development: PHWRs, fast Breeder Reactors (FBRs), and reactors based on Uranium -233 and Thorium -232 cycle, which is still reported to be far away from reality. Yet IEP advocates a large and unrealistic addition to nuclear power capacity by 2031-32.

Observers of nuclear power industry have been of the opinion that whereas the nuclear establishment in the country has been making tall claims on the increased role of nuclear energy, the reality has been much less in successive decades after independence. On the basis of many plans and assuming optimistic development times, Dr. Homi Bhabha had announced that there would be 8,000 MW of nuclear power in the country by 1980. As the years progressed, these predictions increased. By 1962, the prediction was that nuclear energy would generate 20,000 -25,000 MW by 1987 and by 1969 the AEC predicted that by 2000 there would be 43,500 MW of nuclear generating capacity. All of this was before a single unit of nuclear electricity was produced in the country – India’s first reactor, Tarapur, was only commissioned in 1969! {M. V. Ramana, “Nuclear Power in India: Failed Past, Dubious Future”, March 2007, http://www.isn.ethz.ch}.

The reality has been quite different. Installed capacity of nuclear power generation in 1979-80 was about 600 MW; about 950 MW in 1987; 2,720 MW in 2000; and 4,120 MW in mid-2009. Despite the huge increase in electricity generation capacity in India, from a meager 1,800 MW in 1950 to 90,000 MW in 2000 and 147,000 MW in 2009, the total contribution of nuclear power to the total power generation capacity is about 3% only.

The observers are also of the opinion that this utter failure has not been because of a paucity of resources. Practically all governments have favored nuclear energy and the DAE’s budgets have always been high. The high allocations for the DAE have come at the cost of promoting other, more sustainable, sources of power. In 2002-03, for example, the DAE was allocated Rs. 33.5 billion, dwarfing in comparison the Rs. 4.7 billion allocated to the Ministry of Nonconventional Energy Sources (MNES), which is in charge of developing solar, wind, small hydro, and biomass based power. Despite the smaller allocations, installed capacity of these sources was 4,800 MW in 2005 (as compared to 3,310 MW of nuclear energy). {M. V. Ramana, “Nuclear Power in India: Failed Past, Dubious Future”, March 2007, http://www.isn.ethz.ch}.

Today, notwithstanding over five decades of sustained and lavish government support, nuclear power amounts to just about 4,000 MW. As against this, the current installed base of renewable energy is about 13,200 MW. That is, India’s renewable energy capacity is three times that of nuclear energy, despite the fact that the government expenditure on the latter has been many times that on renewable energy {M. V. Ramana, “Nuclear Power in India: Failed Past, Dubious Future”, March 2007, http://www.isn.ethz.ch}.

While the country is fortunate that there were no major accidents in the nuclear establishment, the observers are of the opinion that adequate safety of operation in the nuclear facilities within the country cannot be guaranteed for various reasons. While more and more complex safety systems/redundancies are being designed and built for the overall safety of nuclear power stations, it should be noted that they are only increasing the number of sub-systems and the complexity. Such complex systems can result in increasing the risk of failure of individual sub-systems/ sub-components (because of unintended/ unexpected interaction between sub-systems), and increasing new accident modes. All these can result in an increase in the number of automatic shutdown of reactors or catastrophic failures. The rapidity at which a minor problem in the complex system of safety can escalate into a major disaster is great in a nuclear power station, as experienced at Chernobyl.

Tall claims have been made about the capability of Indian nuclear establishments, especially the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB), to ensure complete safety of nuclear power projects. The fact that the people manning AERB are generally deputed from Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) OR Nuclear Power Corporation Ltd., which is the operator of the nuclear power plants in the country, cannot assure the complete operational independence of AERB. As far as Chernobyl disaster is concerned Indian nuclear authorities have said that “… secrecy was part of the Soviet culture…” How transparent are the issues with our own nuclear establishments? Mr. A Gopalakrishnan, A former Chairman of AERB, has expressed concern about the complete dependence of AERB on DAE for resources.

There have been suggestions from Indian nuclear authorities that the safe storage of nuclear waste is technically feasible during its active life time. Is it really so, and if so, what about the huge costs involved? Are the efforts to keep nuclear waste safe for thousands of years worthy of all the risks involved? In this regard there are credible and serious concerns that whereas the present generation may get the benefit of electricity from nuclear power, the future generations have to deal with all the risks and costs associated with the spent fuel. Is this fair or socially responsible?

Pro-nuclear advocates have started to argue that nuclear power is a good option against Global Warming. Observers are of the opinion that “flailing nuclear establishments around the world, including India’s, have grabbed this second opportunity and made claims for massive state investments in the hope of resurrecting an industry that has largely collapsed due to its inability to provide clean, safe or cheap electricity”. Two assumptions made by such pro-nuclear advocates are fundamentally flawed. One is that Global Warming can be contained without fundamentally changing the Western pattern of energy consumption, because nuclear energy is tiny contributor to energy mix world wide. It is generally considered to be impossible to contain Global Warming without significantly reducing the energy consumption levels of Western/ developed countries.

The second flawed assumption is that adoption of nuclear power can make sense as a strategy to lower aggregate carbon emissions. In this regard an example of Japan, a pro-nuclear energy country is given. As Jinzaburo Takagi, a Japanese nuclear Chemist, has showed, from 1965 to 1995 Japan’s nuclear power plant capacity went from zero to over 40,000 MW. During the same period its CO2 emissions increased from about 400 million tons to about 1,200 million tons. Increased use of nuclear power did not really reduce Japan/s emission levels. {M. V. Ramana, “Nuclear Power in India: Failed Past, Dubious Future”, March 2007, http://www.isn.ethz.ch}.

Additionally, the amount of energy consumed in the nuclear fuel cycle from the mining stage till its radio active emission gets reduced to safe levels after hundreds of years is estimated to be colossal. The total energy consumed by these processes during the life cycle of a set of nuclear fuels, is estimated to be more than the energy generated by such nuclear fuels. The contribution to atmospheric pollution at the stages of mining and processing, and radiation leaks to atmosphere are not inconsiderable. Taking all these facts into objective account it is certain that nuclear power cannot be a source of clean and green energy. There are much better, cheaper and safer options.

As a long term policy document, IEP was expected to consider all the related issues w.r.t a technology. But in case of nuclear power technology the issues relating to the environmental impacts of nuclear ore mining, radiation risks involved in the entire cycle, popular local opposition for locating a nuclear reactor in a given area, difficulties experienced in land acquisition, and the crucial issue of long term storage of spent fuel have not even been referred to. IEP is quiet on such issues.

The exorbitant capital and operating costs, cost and time over runs, subsidies and hidden costs in the Indian context of nuclear power plants have also been quietly ignored by IEP. International studies have established that if we take into account the true costs associated with disposing nuclear waste, decommissioning the worn out plants, and insuring reactors against catastrophic failures into objective account building nuclear plants in a competitive electricity market is not simply economical. If the import of technology and fuel are to be relied upon the energy security becomes a major issue which has not been addressed. It is very strange that IEP has not dedicated much space for the discussion on nuclear power issue.

As stated by Hazel Henderson, a columnist (Deccan Herald of 29.6.2010), “Nuclear energy, heavily subsidized since its inception, is still the most inefficient, expensive and hazardous way that humans have ever devised to boil water.”

It is a sector on which the govt. is known to be spending large amounts of national resources, because of which much more discussion of the related issues should have been held while formulating recommendations in IEP. Unfortunately, the views of Dept. of Atomic Energy and the personal views of nuclear power proponents seem to have been simply accepted. The fact that not a single a nuclear reactor has been approved in USA or UK after the Chernobyl disaster; the difficulties faced in 1-2-3 agreement with USA; and public opposition to Nuclear Damages Civil Liability Bill etc. should have been taken into objective account.

There seems to be growing skepticism even to finance the nuclear power. “Too many well known banks that otherwise have taken laudable steps towards sustainability, are still investing heavily in the nuclear industry, putting the world on the wrong energy track. Sustainable banking and financing nuclear energy are simply incompatible” said Johan Frijns, BankTrack coordinator.

As per IEP’s projection even with about 17 times increases in capacity by 2031-32 (from present level of about 3,700 MW to 63,000), nuclear contribution can only be about 8 % of the total capacity. As compared to this huge capacity addition projection many countries are planning to raise the percentage of renewables to about 20% of their energy mix. Being a tropical country India is endowed with much more renewable energy potential such as solar power than many other countries which have shown determination to increase their renewable energy share to 20-25%. Israel is reported to be planning for about 50% share of renewable energy. As per a simulation by Greenpeace International, by 2050 India can meet around 65% of electricity and 50% of the Primary Energy demands from renewable energy sources.

The proponents of nuclear power in India project it as a very safe technology. But the reality in Indian conditions seems to be vastly different. In an article by rediff NEWS at rediff.com on 4th October 2010 under the title “197 suicides and 1,733 deaths at India’s nuclear establishments in last 15 yrs”, it was mentioned that “197 employees belonging to a number of nuclear establishments and related institutes in India have committed suicide and 1,733 scientists and employees belonging to these centres have died of illnesses like multiple organ failure, lung cancer, cirrhosis of liver etc, as per a report compiled by Mumbai-based RTI activist Chetan Kothari.”

There is also a considered opinion of the experts that due to exorbitant costs associated and the base load nature, nuclear power can be at best suited to rich societies with high per capita consumption. But for a poor country, like India, it cannot be a suitable option from any perspective.

A press release on 31. March 2011 by Press Information Bureau, Ministry of Power refers to a study on potential savings in the states and indicates that the total consumption assessed in all States is 501,003 MU of electricity; there is a deficit of 73,093 MU and the total energy saving potential is 75,364.08 MU. This is about 15 % of the total consumption. This clearly indicates that in reality there is no need for the crippling power cuts we are facing today. This potential when combined with other efficiency measures like high performance of generating plants, T&D loss reduction, energy conservation, and modest use of the commercially available technologies on distributed renewable energy sources can mean that our country may not need additional conventional power plants for next few years; certainly we do not need the large number of power plants being planned/executed all over the country.

T&D loss reduction from the present level of about 28% to 10% alone can provide about additional power capacity which will be equal to 6 times the present installed nuclear power capacity. So the irrelevance of nuclear power to our electricity supply scenario is obvious. In this context the very need for many nuclear power parks can be & must be consistently questioned. Only the people directly dependent on nuclear establishment are the beneficiaries of the huge money being invested in nuclear power in India. This fact has to be highlighted.

In view of the multifarious problems associated with nuclear power plants and its miniscule contribution to overall energy scenario even by 2031-32, our society should thoroughly review whether the resources made available for this sector is well spent on developing the new & renewable energy sources, which will eliminate all the thorny issues associated with nuclear power sector.

An objective analysis of all the costs and benefits to the society of nuclear power plants will most certainly reveal that while the costs are unbelievably high, the benefits are very meager and that too for a small section of the society. Without undertaking such objective analysis and without taking all the stakeholders into confidence, to continue to rely of nuclear power will tantamount to letting down our people.

Without an objective and transparent process of diligent approval mechanism for high impact nuclear power projects, it is not inconceivable that the present and future generations are likely to blame the MoEF and the present Union Government for all the dire consequences of nuclear emergencies in this country.


AUTHOR: Shankar Sharma
E-MAIL: shankar.sharma2005 [at] gmail.com

Unfortunately, the people who believe such claims are credulously unaware of the fact that those who accuse Iran of trying to develop nuclear weapons are themselves the largest possessors of the state-of-the-art nuclear weapons and other types of weapons of mass destruction.

It should not be neglected that Iran has always been at the forefront of combating the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction and also a victim of such weapons during the 8-year imposed war with the Ba’athist regime of Saddam Hussein which claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iranians, and it was the United States that equipped Saddam with such weapons to use against the Iranian people in an unequal and unjustifiable war in which the brutal Iraqi dictator was unconditionally supported by a strong coalition of the United States and its European allies.

Since the U.S.-manufactured controversy over Iran’s nuclear program was ignited in the early 2000s, the White House and its cronies successfully distracted the international attention from the illegal, underground nuclear activities of Israeli regime and helped Tel Aviv to secretively further its nuclear program and build atomic weapons.

According to the Federation of American Scientists, Israel now possesses up to 200 nuclear warheads and since it is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT), it cannot be held accountable over its military nuclear program.

The US Congress Office of Technology Assessment has recorded Israel as a country generally reported as having undeclared chemical warfare capabilities, and an offensive biological warfare program.

Since Israel started the development of nuclear weapons in early 1950s, it adopted a so-called policy of “deliberate ambiguity” and concealed its nuclear activities under this counterfeit label to enjoy immunity and avoid responsibility over its nuclear program, meaning that it neither confirms nor denies the possession of nuclear weapons, while even the U.S.-based scientific and research organizations have admitted that it has a perilous nuclear arsenal which is potentially able to evaporate the whole Middle East in a matter of seconds.

On June 19, 1981, the United Nations Security Council adopted a resolution which urgently called upon Israel to put its nuclear facilities under the comprehensive safeguards of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); however, Israel never heeded the calls of the UNSC and following that resolution, no significant decision was ever made to domesticate Israel and bring its dangerous nuclear facilities under control.

According to Nuclear Weapons Archive website, “the most specific and detailed information to be made public about Israel’s nuclear program came from a former mid-level nuclear technician named Mordechai Vanunu. Vanunu had worked at the Machon 2 facility, where plutonium is produced and bomb components fabricated, for 9 years before his increasing involvement in left wing pro-Palestinian politics led to his dismissal in 1986. Due to lax internal security, prior to his departure he managed to take about 60 photographs covering nearly every part of Machon 2.”

He made contact with the London Sunday Times and began to write an exclusive story about the details of Israel’s nuclear program. Unfortunately for Vanunu, “the Israeli government had found out about his activities and the Mossad arranged to kidnap him and bring him back to Israel for trial,” the report added.

Now, Iran has hosted dozens of representatives and experts from over 40 countries in the Second International Nuclear Disarmament Conference in Tehran to discuss the most important nuclear threats which jeopardize the international peace and security.

Last year, Iran had hosted the first Nuclear Disarmament Conference under the title of “Nuclear Energy for All, Nuclear Weapon for None.”

According to the scholars and experts who took part in this years conference, the possession of nuclear weapons by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council along with Israel which is the sole possessor of nuclear weapons in the Middle East are among the main concerns of international community which not only thwart the creation of a nuclear-free Middle East but also portray an unquestionable exercise of double standards by the Western powers.

The Tehran conference on nuclear disarmament has concluded that all of the non-NPT members should ratify this treaty and allow the inspection of their nuclear facilities. It has also proposed that Israel should be disarmed as soon as possible, because it’s the only owner of nuclear weapons in the Middle East.

Even as even the U.S. intelligence services have confirmed that Iran does not intend to produce nuclear weapons, Tehran is lethally under the pressure of the United States and its European friends over its civilian nuclear program. This is while 9 countries in the world own more than 20,000 nuclear warheads and this leaves us with a basic question: who poses the real threat to international peace and security?

AUTHOR: Kourosh Ziabari
URL: http://www.intifada-palestine.com
E-MAIL: kziabari [at] gmail.com