#Kodankulam @writercsk நீங்கள் கொடுத்த இந்த கட்டுரை படித்தேன்.மிக நுண்ணியமாக நடுநிலை பேசுவதுபோல் பாசாங்கும் கட்டுரை இது.

George Monbiot was never ardently opposed Nuclear energy(NE),but against it. He also criticized those who oppose Nuclear Energy for false propaganda.There are 'n' no of intellectuals who still believe/advocate Nuclear Energy is unsafe by any means.So George's advocacy is not sufficient as he just says that the safety systems in Fukishima worked hence he believes all nuclear plants will fit in to that spectrum. My rationale mind denied to accept that as i believe every accident is unique. Hope you would know the difference between "Fail Safe" and "Fool Proof". No Scientist in this world shall warranty the safety of any Nuclear Plant in the world when a accident occurs but shall only "assure" the safety.

When this article speaks much about global warming and rising sea levels, the author comfortably forget to utter a single word about Reprocessing / safety of the "Used Fuel"? I don't see it an intellectual debate, when you leave the loose ends untied.

Regarding the XKCD chart also there are certain questions for me.

1.Eating(Consuming) a banana is equated to living a year 50 miles near a working a Nuclear Plant. A working plant has RUNNING/WORKING safety installations,i hope this calculation is based on International guide-lined / implemented power plant. If you shall gimme so input regarding the same distance radiation emission in India. The question is about failure of such safety installations in a running plant, then what would be the repercussions ?

2.the extra dose that Tokyo residents received following Fukushima (about 40 microsieverts([in what duration they received that?]) was about a tenth of the yearly dose from natural radioactive potassium in the body (about 390 microsieverts), also for your information Tokyo is roughly 300 KMS from Fukishima and even so it receives 4000msevs. Hope you would know the fact that these radiations will increase in exponential way when the distance reduces. I'm right?

3. As like the author's concern regarding avoiding Chernobyl kind of accident, My question is do we have such perspective in avoiding such failures in Kodankulam? and are we equipped with evacuation mechanism to avert major catastrophes(i avoided the word disaster knowingly) If so, does that plant complaint with all the safety guidelines issued by IAEA or at least AERB?

4. The article very softly touches the rehabilitation part, however i feel happy at least the author concerned to mention that. No insurance / No rehabilation / No emergency evacuation plan and they called it, sorry assures it safe.

5.The proposed NSRA reminds me the fate of NSA proposed after Mumbai Attacks.

6.Coal become scarce, Water is dream, wind is optional, solar is costly, then why not Nuclear shall be an acceptable slogan, but when it answers all the questions raised and when the doubts are cleared.

I'm not against science, as an ardent student of science, the first lesson what it teaches me was to question everything.

BTW: The author mildly compared "Aeroplane travel with Nuclear power plant" which reminded an argument you had with a women here, when she questions that why shall those miscreant talks can be extended to your kins. I will respond to this "Aeroplane-Nuclear power plant" comparison as you responded to that argument.

Thanks and Regards,

Ragupathi Raja.

Your Source article : http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/article3893610.ece

Replies accepted only in the form of Twitlonger.

Reply · Report Post