How Can We Prevent Another Chernobyl? A Call to Action Against Nuclear Risks

Hi Cite HR friends,

Here is a thought-provoking article with a link that gives the REAL side of a Nuclear disaster. Isn't it absolutely relevant to be quoted at this time when the whole media and lots of people are going gung ho on the "Nuclear deal"?

No more Chernobyls.

Meet Annya. She is a fifteen-year-old girl from Belarus but was unfortunate enough to be born in the fallout zone from the Chernobyl nuclear disaster.

Annya was born in 1990 in a village highly contaminated by the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear meltdown. A cancerous brain tumor at the age of four marked the end of Annya's childhood and the beginning of a life of pain and illness. Annya has spent her life in and out of the hospital; every 15 minutes of every night, she must be turned to prevent further pain and bedsores.

Twenty years after the disaster, Annya and her parents battle every day with the cruel and personal legacy of Chernobyl. For Annya and for the thousands of children like her, you need to speak out and say NO more nuclear, NO more Chernobyls. If you don't, who will?

Call on the UN to stop its promotion of a dirty, dangerous industry and focus its resources exclusively on its critical mission of disarmament and world peace.

Check out this link for the full article <link no longer exists - removed>.

Thanks,

Bala

I agree, but doesn't everything have a negative side? That doesn't mean you let the negative outweigh the positive. Comments expected!

Regards,
Sunayna

Hi Sunayna,

Thanks for your comments. While I do agree with your point that negative thoughts should not outweigh positive ones, my point is that isn't it better that we are present to the negative side also? And in this rat race for "energy superiority," are we losing out on other possible (far less dangerous) alternatives for oil energy? Isn't it better to drive more focus and investment on other means of alternative energy?

Thanks,
Bala

Hi all,

Bala, just a thought... The other, not so deadly, alternatives to oil might not really be enough for the big population that is presently on the face of this earth.

- Pal.

Alright, wait wait...I'm back. Hmm...so I was saying that it has a bright and useful positive side which shouldn't outweigh the dull negative side. Bala, it's not energy superiority...it's "equality." And as a matter of fact, it's not even equality. The US is far more advanced in terms of technology and weapons compared to India, from what I've read and understood in the ET in the past week. Also, today's or yesterday's ET says that there is some condition which doesn't allow the fuel or something to stay in BARC, which ensures that it won't be misused.

Hi Sunayna,

My mistake, it is not even energy equality. The US and even China are miles ahead of us as far as energy generation is concerned. I am not referring to the weapon program or non-peaceful uses of Nuclear technology. What happened in Chernobyl (which the article was discussing) was an accident in a civilian nuclear reactor. This is what is really dangerous. Strict safeguards have to be implemented to avoid accidents. Our track record on this has so far been more or less blemishless. But is such a risk worth taking when you have alternate sources of energy, and why don't we seriously look at solid investment in research for alternative sources of energy? I have tried to make clear the point. More discussions welcome.

Thanks,
Bala

My mistake, it is not even energy equality. The US and even China are miles ahead of us as far as energy generation is concerned.

What happened in Chernobyl (which the article was discussing) was an accident in a civilian nuclear reactor. Exactly the reason why the civil and military use is going to be differentiated (as per paper knowledge again).

Sorry, Sunayna, that is not the reason for splitting civilian and military facilities.

Again, I wish to repeat the same thing. What happened in Chernobyl (or for that matter Three Mile Island several years ago) was an accident - and not a deliberate misuse. We are talking here of nuclear accidents - be it in a civilian site or military site. In both cases, an accident in a nuclear installation is fraught with dangerous consequences.

Thanks,
Bala

Hi all,

Read this, should we be going this way?

Quote:

Scene 1

Customers at a supermarket petrol forecourt in Norwich will soon become the first in the UK to have the option of filling up on E85 bioethanol, the environmentally benign fuel derived from crops. Other local stations are set to follow, making the Norfolk city, for now at least, the biofuel motoring capital of Britain.

To take advantage of this, of course, you will need to drive one of the handful of cars able to run on E85 from the likes of Saab or Ford. There are, as far as we know, no figures available for the number of biofuel-ready motorists in the Norwich area, but it is a fair bet that queues at the pumps in question will hardly stretch around the block.

That isn't, however, a reason for not opening a pump. The car manufacturers at one end of the chain, and the fledgling 'green fuels' industry at the other, are beginning the tricky process of creating a demand and a supply, respectively.

What's the point of having a biofuel-ready car if there's no biofuel to put in it? Norfolk is the pump-primer because it has regional agricultural capacity growing the stuff needed to make biofuel, and processing facilities to produce it. From little acorns, etc.

Scene 2

BMW announced further plans to push on with series production of hydrogen vehicles. The German auto giant will have a hydrogen-powered 7-series executive model ready within two years, it said this week, and underlined its commitment to hydrogen across its range over the longer term.

It's possible that Norwich will see hydrogen pumps soon, making it the green car capital of Europe, but the point is the same. Without an infrastructure, these alternatives to petrol and diesel have no hope of flourishing.

The automotive OEMs, the energy majors, and the fuel retailers can all play their part, but the critical role will, as so often, be down to the government.

Around the world, the lesson is the same. If governments are serious about creating demand for alternative energy and power technologies, they need to put their money, in the form of tax breaks, subsidies, and other incentives, where their mouth is.

Unquote:

Very true! This is my opinion.

Thanks,

Bala

Really? Then what is the reason? Do explain.

Hey Bala, please, please, please don't say sorry. It feels very odd. This is a discussion, and everyone is allowed to voice their opinion.

Hi Sunayna,

Thanks for your feedback.

The reason for splitting civilian and military nuclear facilities is as follows:

Before going into the reason, let me state the whole story:

1. India and the USA agree on the terms for international (IAEA) inspection of Indian nuclear facilities.

2. One of the terms of the agreement is that the entire nuclear facilities in India will be split into two - civilian and military.

3. Only the civilian nuclear facilities will be open to periodic international inspections.

4. The military nuclear facilities will not be open for any international agency inspection.

5. The reason for splitting civilian and military nuclear facilities is that India will be able to retain its option for reprocessing plutonium, use it for nuclear weapons if necessary, continue with its PFBTR research program, and strive for attaining self-sufficiency in nuclear technology.

The fact remains that despite a complete ban by the USA and other countries on the export of nuclear technology, India (through consistent and determined research) is more or less self-sufficient in this technology.

I hope the above is clear.

The subject I mentioned in my first message on "Chernobyl" was regarding the possibility and terrible effects of a 'nuclear accident.'

Thanks,

Bala

Ya, got the need for split... I have a note based totally on optimism and staying alert. :) If we stop the nuclear progress on the basis that there might be an accident, aren't we being too pessimistic? Ya, I know Chernobyl was sad, but didn't it help India progress? It's like fearing a bath on account of catching a cold. :wink: Comments expected.

Sunayna

Hey, don't others have an opinion on this???

Hi Sunayna,

Thank you for the comments. I wish others would also join the discussions. Maybe I have been a little too pessimistic. I request you to please read the article on "Sustainable Development" by Sri Sri Ravishankar which I uploaded to this site yesterday. I presume that will shed some more light on the subject (not necessarily 'nuclear' but development in general).

Thanks once again,
Bala