Date:26/07/2007 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/thehindu/seta
/2007/07/26/stories/2007072650021500.htm
Are Indian nuclear power plants earthquake-resistant?
Indian nuclear power plant design follows internationally accepted seismic safety criteria
The plants at Kakrapar, Narora, and Rawatbhata operated normally during the Bhuj quake
Nuclear power plants are the most seismically hardened structures in the country
Earthquake resistance of nuclear power plants (NPPs) received well deserved attention worldwide because the epicentre of the recent (July 16, 2007) earthquake in Japan was 19 km from the seven-unit Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power station. The units which were operating (3, 4 and 7) shut down automatically as per the design intent.
The media ‘storm’ rightly covered the delay in releasing the information and some inaccuracies in the reports on the minuscule releases of radioactivity and other dramatic events (waste drums toppled, exhaust ducts displaced etc.) which in reality had a limited impact on safety.
Two reassuring facts
However, nobody noticed two reassuring facts: the plant creditably withstood the earthquake which had twice the power of its design basis; the reactor, turbine building structures or major components did not suffer any damage.
The nuclear power plants at Kakrapar, Narora, and Rawatbhata operated normally during the Bhuj earthquake (6.9 on the Richter scale) on January 26, 2001.These plants experienced levels of vibration much below those for which they have been designed (Warudkar, NuPower, 2001).
The public may have concerns about Tarapur Unit 1&2 which were designed as per earlier standards. Specialists re-evaluated the seismic safety of these reactors and remedied the shortfalls by following the practices and guidelines in the Safety Report Series No 28 titled ‘Seismic Evaluation of Existing Nuclear Power Plants’ of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA, 2003). Specialists are re-evaluating the seismic safety of other older reactors
Safety review is a continuous process. IAEA recommends reassessment if there is any evidence of higher seismic hazard than considered for the design of the plant. Re-evaluation will cover systems, structures and components required for safe shutdown, for maintenance of the plant in safe shutdown state, for removal of decay heat generated and for confinement of radioactive materials. The designers of Indian nuclear power plants follow internationally accepted seismic safety criteria and guidelines.
The plants shall withstand maximum credible earthquakes at their sites. The designers followed seismic safety principles even when a high intensity event has a low probability of occurrence.
Seismic sensors
The Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL) has installed seismic sensors at all plants as stipulated by the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB)
The Earth is made up of a mosaic of tectonic plates which move constantly. They may collide with each other. Strains develop gradually over a large mass of rock at the plate boundaries (Bhardwaj, NuPower, 2001); when accumulated strain exceeds the strength of the rocks, the rock masses rupture suddenly releasing stored energy which gets transmitted as seismic waves. The vibrations generated get attenuated as they travel through the intervening media.
Earthquake vibrations contain a mixture of frequencies. They are rich in the frequency range of 1 to 15 Hz. Above 15 Hz the energy reduces continuously and is very less beyond 33 Hz (Warudkar, NuPower, 2001). The force induced in a structure gets amplified if the excitation frequency is close to its natural frequency.
Earthquake magnitude
The effect of earthquake-induced vibrations depends on the magnitude of the earthquake, the depth of focus, the distance from the epicentre and the strata on which the NPPs stand.
Specialists accept a site for constructing a nuclear power plant after analyzing the seismic inputs from agencies such as the Oil and Natural Gas Commission (ONGC), National Geophysical Research Institute (NGRI), India Meteorological Department, and Atomic Minerals Directorate for Exploration and Research. NPPS shall not be constructed at sites falling above Zone 4. AERB also prohibits construction of NPPs at sites with a fault located within 5 km.
Seismic parameters
The designers estimate the seismic parameters for nuclear power plant structures conservatively. The analysis and design of these structures follow internationally accepted standards.
They subject the designs to the requirements of vigorous quality assurance and safety review at multiple levels (Warudkar, NuPower, 2001)
I know that the nuclear power plants are the most seismically hardened structures in the country. Only the ignorant will call me foolhardy, if I rush to a nuclear power plant to save myself from an imminent earthquake!
K.S. PARATHASARATHY
FORMER SECRETARY, AERB
( ksparth@yahoo.co.uk)
© Copyright 2000 - 2006 The Hindu
Saturday, July 28, 2007
Monday, July 23, 2007
India's tryst with fusion technology
India has joined the ITER project and thus the elite group of countries with interest in fusion technology. This step will help India to leapfrog in time when the fusion reactor will start delivering electric power a few decades from now.
DAILY EXCELSIOR
http://www.dailyexcelsior.com/web1/07july22/toc.htm
India's tryst with fusion technology
By Dr K S Parthasarathy
On July 5, 2007 a meeting of the Union Cabinet chaired by Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh approved the country's participation in the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) project at an estimated cost of Rs. 2,500 crore. This project aims at demonstrating the scientific and technical feasibility of fusion power. The partners in this venture are: European Union (represented by EURATOM), Japan, the People's Repulic of China, India, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation and the USA.
ITER is a tokamak to demonstrate the scientific and technological feasibility of fusion power. It may cost $ 5 billion to construct it over a period of 10 years. Its total operating costs over 20 years may be of a similar order. Europe will bear half of the total expenditure and the other six partners will each contribute up to 10 per cent, leaving 10 per cent cost towards some contingency. ITER will be located at Cadarache, in the South of France.
The reactor which will produce a fusion power of 500 MW for a burn length of 400 seconds is sufficient to demonstrate the physics of the burning plasma in a power plant environment.
India will contribute equipment worth 500 million dollars to the experiment and will participate in its subsequent operation and experiments. Specialists have noted that the sheer magnitude of the investments being committed by the ITER partners demonstrates their belief and commitment in the future of fusion energy.
Since the partner countries have been carrying out the most advanced fusion energy research work for several decades, they will be able to address the complex issues related to the field promptly. Their effort will certainly produce a viable fusion energy source at the end of the project.
India will supply nine items including a 28 m dia, 26m tall SS cryostat, which forms the outer vacuum envelope for ITER, the vacuum vessel shields made of 2 per cent boron steel and occupying space between the two walls, eight 2.5 mega watt in cyclotron heating sources, complete with power systems and controls and cryo-distribution and water cooling subsystems (Nuclear India, May/June 2006).
Do we derive any benefit by joining this seemingly expensive project?
According to Dr P.K.Kaw, Director, Institute of Plasma Research, the Indian nodal agency for the project, the opportunity that participation in ITER offers us, is enormous (Nuclear India, May/June 2006). He listed several advantages. This is the first time that we shall be full partners in a prestigious international experiment. We shall have to come to international standards of quality, safety, time schedule maintenance etc. immediately.
Indian scientists and engineers will get direct hands-on experience in design, fabrication, and operation etc. on the latest fusion technologies. They will get access to many fusion technologies on the scale relevant to fusion reactors for the first time.
"If we backup the ITER INDIA effort with an aggressive, well focused national programme, it will allow us to leapfrog by at least a couple of decades" he said. India can legitimately claim that by accepting it as a full partner, international community has recognized India's fusion research activities.
According to Dr. M.R.Srinivasan, former Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission, Indian industry is well poised to secure some of the contracts for ITER project (The Hindu, July 27, 2005).
We have developed many sophisticated technologies during the construction of the two fusion devices Aditya and Steady State Superconducting Tokamak 1 (SST1) . This helps us to contribute various systems and components needed to construct ITER. Professor S.K.Mattoo, Institute of Plasma Research, confirmed that while participating in ITER, we will have access to the operation of systems contributed by other participants and operation of the fusion reactor. Our industry may not get an opportunity to produce those system. "ITER is not a solution to the shortfalls in the fusion technology of the country. ITER is a window of opportunity for laying a plan for infrastructure in fusion" Prof. Mattoo clarified (Nuclear India, May/June 2006).
Professor Mattoo stated that during the operation of the fusion reactor, the internal structure of the reactor will become radioactive. We may have to replace radioactive internal components mechanically. Such remote handling equipment must be capable of handling components weighing up to 50,000kg. This technology is being developed in Europe.
We may need advanced low activation materials to make the internal parts of the fusion reactor. This will ensure that fusion waste will not contain long lived radio-nuclides. Besides being resistant to activation, they must be capable of tolerating high surface heat loads and thermal cycling. The partners consider setting up an International Fusion Material Irradiation Facility to test these materials. India may join this collaborative effort.
India has special interest in developing fusion technology. In August 1955, when 1200 scientists from 72 nations attended the first International Conference on Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy, Russian scientists waxed eloquent on their 5 MW nuclear power reactor; American scientists boasted of the uses of radioisotopes in medicine and industry; British bragged about their plans to make commercial atomic power stations.
".... the talk that most stirred the conference's first week was a bold prophecy by India's physicist Homi J. Bhabha, 45, conference president. Bound by none of the security regulations that so often gag U.S. experts, Bhabha predicted that by 1975 man will have tamed the Hydrogen bomb's fusion reaction and converted its tremendous energy (more than 1000 times that of the A-bomb) to useful electric power" Time Magazine (August 22,1955) reported.
Yes, Bhabha was overly optimistic. We are now nowhere near the goal. It took half a century for the world community to realize that they can achieve the dream of limitless, clean fusion power only through international cooperation! It is appropriate that India joined the elite club to realize the dream of Dr Homi J.Bhabha, the architect of nuclear India.
-PTI Feature
DAILY EXCELSIOR
http://www.dailyexcelsior.com/web1/07july22/toc.htm
India's tryst with fusion technology
By Dr K S Parthasarathy
On July 5, 2007 a meeting of the Union Cabinet chaired by Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh approved the country's participation in the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) project at an estimated cost of Rs. 2,500 crore. This project aims at demonstrating the scientific and technical feasibility of fusion power. The partners in this venture are: European Union (represented by EURATOM), Japan, the People's Repulic of China, India, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation and the USA.
ITER is a tokamak to demonstrate the scientific and technological feasibility of fusion power. It may cost $ 5 billion to construct it over a period of 10 years. Its total operating costs over 20 years may be of a similar order. Europe will bear half of the total expenditure and the other six partners will each contribute up to 10 per cent, leaving 10 per cent cost towards some contingency. ITER will be located at Cadarache, in the South of France.
The reactor which will produce a fusion power of 500 MW for a burn length of 400 seconds is sufficient to demonstrate the physics of the burning plasma in a power plant environment.
India will contribute equipment worth 500 million dollars to the experiment and will participate in its subsequent operation and experiments. Specialists have noted that the sheer magnitude of the investments being committed by the ITER partners demonstrates their belief and commitment in the future of fusion energy.
Since the partner countries have been carrying out the most advanced fusion energy research work for several decades, they will be able to address the complex issues related to the field promptly. Their effort will certainly produce a viable fusion energy source at the end of the project.
India will supply nine items including a 28 m dia, 26m tall SS cryostat, which forms the outer vacuum envelope for ITER, the vacuum vessel shields made of 2 per cent boron steel and occupying space between the two walls, eight 2.5 mega watt in cyclotron heating sources, complete with power systems and controls and cryo-distribution and water cooling subsystems (Nuclear India, May/June 2006).
Do we derive any benefit by joining this seemingly expensive project?
According to Dr P.K.Kaw, Director, Institute of Plasma Research, the Indian nodal agency for the project, the opportunity that participation in ITER offers us, is enormous (Nuclear India, May/June 2006). He listed several advantages. This is the first time that we shall be full partners in a prestigious international experiment. We shall have to come to international standards of quality, safety, time schedule maintenance etc. immediately.
Indian scientists and engineers will get direct hands-on experience in design, fabrication, and operation etc. on the latest fusion technologies. They will get access to many fusion technologies on the scale relevant to fusion reactors for the first time.
"If we backup the ITER INDIA effort with an aggressive, well focused national programme, it will allow us to leapfrog by at least a couple of decades" he said. India can legitimately claim that by accepting it as a full partner, international community has recognized India's fusion research activities.
According to Dr. M.R.Srinivasan, former Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission, Indian industry is well poised to secure some of the contracts for ITER project (The Hindu, July 27, 2005).
We have developed many sophisticated technologies during the construction of the two fusion devices Aditya and Steady State Superconducting Tokamak 1 (SST1) . This helps us to contribute various systems and components needed to construct ITER. Professor S.K.Mattoo, Institute of Plasma Research, confirmed that while participating in ITER, we will have access to the operation of systems contributed by other participants and operation of the fusion reactor. Our industry may not get an opportunity to produce those system. "ITER is not a solution to the shortfalls in the fusion technology of the country. ITER is a window of opportunity for laying a plan for infrastructure in fusion" Prof. Mattoo clarified (Nuclear India, May/June 2006).
Professor Mattoo stated that during the operation of the fusion reactor, the internal structure of the reactor will become radioactive. We may have to replace radioactive internal components mechanically. Such remote handling equipment must be capable of handling components weighing up to 50,000kg. This technology is being developed in Europe.
We may need advanced low activation materials to make the internal parts of the fusion reactor. This will ensure that fusion waste will not contain long lived radio-nuclides. Besides being resistant to activation, they must be capable of tolerating high surface heat loads and thermal cycling. The partners consider setting up an International Fusion Material Irradiation Facility to test these materials. India may join this collaborative effort.
India has special interest in developing fusion technology. In August 1955, when 1200 scientists from 72 nations attended the first International Conference on Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy, Russian scientists waxed eloquent on their 5 MW nuclear power reactor; American scientists boasted of the uses of radioisotopes in medicine and industry; British bragged about their plans to make commercial atomic power stations.
".... the talk that most stirred the conference's first week was a bold prophecy by India's physicist Homi J. Bhabha, 45, conference president. Bound by none of the security regulations that so often gag U.S. experts, Bhabha predicted that by 1975 man will have tamed the Hydrogen bomb's fusion reaction and converted its tremendous energy (more than 1000 times that of the A-bomb) to useful electric power" Time Magazine (August 22,1955) reported.
Yes, Bhabha was overly optimistic. We are now nowhere near the goal. It took half a century for the world community to realize that they can achieve the dream of limitless, clean fusion power only through international cooperation! It is appropriate that India joined the elite club to realize the dream of Dr Homi J.Bhabha, the architect of nuclear India.
-PTI Feature
Saturday, July 21, 2007
Is maligning plutonium metal justified?
THERE IS SO MUCH INFORMATION ABOUT THE TOXICITY OF PLUTONIUM AVAILABLE IN OPEN LITERATURE THAT IT IS TIME TO EXAMINE WHETHER MALIGNING THE PRECIOUS SOURCE OF ENERGY IS JUSITIFIED OR NOT. IT IS UNFORTUNATE THAT EVEN SPECIALISTS IN REPROCESSING HAVE EXAGGERATED NOTIONS ABOUT PU-TOXICITY.
Dr.K.S.Parthasarathy
Is maligning plutonium metal justified?
Unsubstantiated fears must not impede technological progress towards energy security
Experts do not agree that plutonium is the most toxic material known to man There has not been a single death due to Pu among workers at U.S. nuclear weapon facilities
The Health Physics Society (HPS), a scientific association noted that the word ‘plutonium’ in a news story seems invariably preceded by the adjective ‘deadly.’
HPS argued that the statements such as plutonium is ‘the most deadly element known’ and that ‘a single speck of plutonium inhaled can kill a person’ are not facts but opinions; reporters apparently include them to dramatise the ir story.
Not very soluble
Some scientists perceive plutonium (Pu) as extremely toxic. “What will happen if a misguided fellow drops some Pu in a municipal water reservoir?” a senior scientist, who specialised in fuel reprocessing once asked me. Pu, in its most common chemical form, is not very soluble in water. Once dropped, the heavy metal will sink to the bottom of the reservoir. The damage will not be dramatic.
Many ignorant but influential people contribute to the misinformation on Pu. On November 16, 1996, the Mars-96 satellite fell into the sea with 200 grammes of Pu-238 onboard. Hans Koning, a prolific writer believed that this amount was in principle enough to kill all life on earth!
“Fortunately, it did not fall on a city, where it would have killed a million or more people” he wrote in the International Herald Tribune (IHT, November 27, 1996).
According to the 1982 report of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), between 1945 and 1980, nuclear explosions dispersed about 2.8 tons of Pu-239 globally. “Still life exists” Dr Zbigniew Jaworowski, a scientist who once chaired UNSCEAR, reminded the readers (IHT December, 24 1996).
Specialists asserted that the risk from the well-encapsulated Pu is minimal.
Public apparently believed Hans Koning, the fiction writer rather than Jaworowski, the scientist or the specialists.
Historically, during the war years, someone stated that plutonium was the most toxic material, partly to scare workers into using respirators and following safety precautions scrupulously.
At least 11 Hollywood movies and television shows refer to Pu, not honourably. Two of them depict characters suffering from ‘radiation sickness’ due to inhalation of plutonium.
Biasing the public
One of them was a terrorist. Such movies bias public against plutonium. Scientists find it difficult to undo the damage.
What are the facts? “In the Handbook of Toxicology of Metals 1979, Pu does not rate a mention except in passing in the entry for uranium,” Dr. Colin Keay, former Professor of Physics, University of Newcastle wrote in the Skep tic Magazine (1997).
Experts do not agree that Pu is the most toxic material known to man. Radium is more toxic. Plutonium is an angel compared to polonium-210! A few tenths of a microgramme of polonium-210 killed an Ex Russian spy (The Hindu, December 7) last year.
Orally, Pu is less toxic than caffeine, some vitamins, many plants and fungi. Its chemical toxicity may rank with lead or other heavy metals (chemistrydaily.com, 2005). Ricin, tetrodotoxin, botulinum toxin, tetanus toxin are fatal in doses as low as a milligramme.
A small amount of inhaled plutonium may cause cancer in the next few decades. Large amounts of inhaled or ingested plutonium will cause radiation sickness and death.
So far, there has been not even a single death attributable to Pu among the thousands of workers at U.S. nuclear weapon facilities which handled tens of tons of Pu, 26 workers who became contaminated with Pu during the forties and 18 persons into whom researchers injected Pu to study its excretion rates.
Notable record
Despite this notable record of accomplishment, fear of nuclear proliferation made Pu, the most ‘toxic’ substance known to man. Condemning Pu is a single point agenda of anti-nuclear activists.
We must handle Pu carefully to minimise its associated risks which are well recognised. Indian scientists have been handling substantial amounts of Pu safely since January 22, 1965 when they set up the first plant to extract Pu. Plutonium is vital to the country’s three-stage nuclear power programme. Unsubstantiated fears must not impede the technological progress, which ensures energy security to the nation.
K.S. PARTHASARATHY
Former Secretary, AERB
( ksparth@yahoo.co.uk )
© Copyright 2000 - 2006 The Hindu
Dr.K.S.Parthasarathy
Is maligning plutonium metal justified?
Unsubstantiated fears must not impede technological progress towards energy security
Experts do not agree that plutonium is the most toxic material known to man There has not been a single death due to Pu among workers at U.S. nuclear weapon facilities
The Health Physics Society (HPS), a scientific association noted that the word ‘plutonium’ in a news story seems invariably preceded by the adjective ‘deadly.’
HPS argued that the statements such as plutonium is ‘the most deadly element known’ and that ‘a single speck of plutonium inhaled can kill a person’ are not facts but opinions; reporters apparently include them to dramatise the ir story.
Not very soluble
Some scientists perceive plutonium (Pu) as extremely toxic. “What will happen if a misguided fellow drops some Pu in a municipal water reservoir?” a senior scientist, who specialised in fuel reprocessing once asked me. Pu, in its most common chemical form, is not very soluble in water. Once dropped, the heavy metal will sink to the bottom of the reservoir. The damage will not be dramatic.
Many ignorant but influential people contribute to the misinformation on Pu. On November 16, 1996, the Mars-96 satellite fell into the sea with 200 grammes of Pu-238 onboard. Hans Koning, a prolific writer believed that this amount was in principle enough to kill all life on earth!
“Fortunately, it did not fall on a city, where it would have killed a million or more people” he wrote in the International Herald Tribune (IHT, November 27, 1996).
According to the 1982 report of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), between 1945 and 1980, nuclear explosions dispersed about 2.8 tons of Pu-239 globally. “Still life exists” Dr Zbigniew Jaworowski, a scientist who once chaired UNSCEAR, reminded the readers (IHT December, 24 1996).
Specialists asserted that the risk from the well-encapsulated Pu is minimal.
Public apparently believed Hans Koning, the fiction writer rather than Jaworowski, the scientist or the specialists.
Historically, during the war years, someone stated that plutonium was the most toxic material, partly to scare workers into using respirators and following safety precautions scrupulously.
At least 11 Hollywood movies and television shows refer to Pu, not honourably. Two of them depict characters suffering from ‘radiation sickness’ due to inhalation of plutonium.
Biasing the public
One of them was a terrorist. Such movies bias public against plutonium. Scientists find it difficult to undo the damage.
What are the facts? “In the Handbook of Toxicology of Metals 1979, Pu does not rate a mention except in passing in the entry for uranium,” Dr. Colin Keay, former Professor of Physics, University of Newcastle wrote in the Skep tic Magazine (1997).
Experts do not agree that Pu is the most toxic material known to man. Radium is more toxic. Plutonium is an angel compared to polonium-210! A few tenths of a microgramme of polonium-210 killed an Ex Russian spy (The Hindu, December 7) last year.
Orally, Pu is less toxic than caffeine, some vitamins, many plants and fungi. Its chemical toxicity may rank with lead or other heavy metals (chemistrydaily.com, 2005). Ricin, tetrodotoxin, botulinum toxin, tetanus toxin are fatal in doses as low as a milligramme.
A small amount of inhaled plutonium may cause cancer in the next few decades. Large amounts of inhaled or ingested plutonium will cause radiation sickness and death.
So far, there has been not even a single death attributable to Pu among the thousands of workers at U.S. nuclear weapon facilities which handled tens of tons of Pu, 26 workers who became contaminated with Pu during the forties and 18 persons into whom researchers injected Pu to study its excretion rates.
Notable record
Despite this notable record of accomplishment, fear of nuclear proliferation made Pu, the most ‘toxic’ substance known to man. Condemning Pu is a single point agenda of anti-nuclear activists.
We must handle Pu carefully to minimise its associated risks which are well recognised. Indian scientists have been handling substantial amounts of Pu safely since January 22, 1965 when they set up the first plant to extract Pu. Plutonium is vital to the country’s three-stage nuclear power programme. Unsubstantiated fears must not impede the technological progress, which ensures energy security to the nation.
K.S. PARTHASARATHY
Former Secretary, AERB
( ksparth@yahoo.co.uk )
© Copyright 2000 - 2006 The Hindu
Thursday, July 12, 2007
'Nuclear'news:who is minding the shop?
http://www.dailyexcelsior.com/web1/07july12/toc.htm
DAILY EXCELSIOR
‘Nuclear’ news : Who is minding the shop ?
By Dr K S Parthasarathy
Recent controversies surrounding the visit of USS Nimitz, a nuclear aircraft carrier to Chennai, initially gave the false impression that there is no one to mind the shop !
Public had legitimate reasons to worry. The reassuring and prompt statements from scientists who knew the safety features of the reactors on board such ships and the lucid press release from the Ministry of Defence (MOD) allayed these fears to a great extent.
MOD had evolved the process of clearing the harbour for berthing nuclear vessels since January 5, 1988 when Indian navy inducted the nuclear powered INS Chakra into its fleet. The procedures included survey by an Environmental Survey Committee (ESC) set up by the Scientific Advisor to Defence Minister. MOD drew up a Radiation Safety Contingency Plan and implemented it prior to berthing of INS Chakra; the ship operated from 1988 to 1991.
From 15 February 2001 to 3rd November 2006, three nuclear powered ships from USA, three from France and one ship from UK visited India. There were ten visits; nine were to Goa and one to Mumbai. Indian Navy conducted the ‘International Fleet Review’ during which the French Nuclear Submarine Perle berthed in Mumbai harbour from 15 to 20 February 2001.
MOD intimates the ESC of an impending visit by a nuclear powered ship or submarine. ESC proceeds to the port well in advance before the arrival of the nuclear powered vessel and carries out a survey.
Movement of the nuclear powered ship takes place only during daylight hours, in good visibility and with escort tugs in attendance. No other ship is berthed within 200 metre radius of the nuclear powered ship. Ships berthed within 600 metre of the berth are kept at short notice, not exceeding tour hours, to get underway.
Radiation monitoring laboratories manned by scientists from Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO)/Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) and Defence personnel, set up onboard a suitable ship, undertake frequent monitoring of water and air samples.
A standing ESC has carried out a detailed survey at Chennai and cleared the visit of USS Nimitz from radiation hazard point of view. The stingent radiation monitoring protocol in place includes periodic monitoring protocol in place includes periodic monitoring and analysis of air and water samples. The agency conducts these activities under the ambit of a well rehearsed Radiation Safety Contingency Plan over seen by a Crisis Management Group and a Crisis Management Cell comprising of scientists from DRDO, BARC, Defence Laboratory, Jodhpur, representatives of the Chennai Port Trust and the Indian Navy.
In spite of the well established and frequently rehearsed procedures in place, the visit of the carrier generated some controversy. Nobody discussed the issues so far though nuclear powered ships have been visiting Indian ports periodically. It is amusing to note that even as late as July 2nd this year news agencies continue to state that USS Nimitz is the first nuclear powered ship to visit an Indian port though the press release dated July 27 from MOD gave details of ten visits during 2001-2006. Our scientists and engineers have been operating nuclear facilities including several nuclear power reactors for the past many decades, a few of these are based at coastal areas. Scientists in the Environmental Survey Laboratories have developed state of the art capability to measure radioactivity in samples of air and water from the sixties.
Plant, site and offsite emergency plans are in place at every nuclear power plant. Preparing relevant documentation and enforcing appropriate plans with the help of scientists and engineers are routine functions for the concerned authorities.
In April 1994, a ‘‘scientist’’ working with an NGO reported that his team measured high levels of radiation in several parts of Lucknow, including MLA's hostel and a few posh areas. Many national dailies and local Doordarshan covered the news.
Three scientists from the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) and the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) investigated the observations and unambiguously demonstrated that the reported increase in background radiation was due to a deficiency of the instrument. It was sensitive to light and indicated some spurious reading when its detector was exposed directly to sunlight with its window open.
The team measured radiation levels in the locations referred to in the NGO's press release and observed that they were within the range normally expected in that part of the country arising solely from natural background radiation.
AERB publicized the findings of the committee. Though the ‘scientist’’ working with the NGO accepted the conclusions of the committee on the spot, he repeated his claim later and said that he was confident he would ‘‘come out with clinching evidence’’ at an appropriate time.
In September 1994 a report from Washington stated that Pakistan was within hours of sending American supplied F-16 jets on a mission to drop conventional bombs on the nuclear reactors at Trombay. ‘‘Millions of people would have died and it would have been a holocaust beyond anything...had Pakistan attacked the two research atomic reactors, Dhruva and Cirus’’, the report warned.
In response to a senior journalist from a national news agency, I explained the topography of Trombay and the design features of the reactors. I explained that a nuclear facility may have plant, site and offsite emergency plans as appropriate. Detailed analysis has shown that releases, if any, from the reactors at Trombay even in an extreme emergency will not have any offsite impact. I told the journalist that the statement from Washington is ‘most absurd’. The item got wide media coverage and hopefully allayed some fear.
Nuclear and associated community must realize that, often, radiation or nuclear safety matters raise alarm totally disproportionate with any measurable harm. They must address these concerns promptly, honestly and openly. It is at times wiser to be proactive. Media is always receptive to those who are minding the shop !
PTI Feature
DAILY EXCELSIOR
‘Nuclear’ news : Who is minding the shop ?
By Dr K S Parthasarathy
Recent controversies surrounding the visit of USS Nimitz, a nuclear aircraft carrier to Chennai, initially gave the false impression that there is no one to mind the shop !
Public had legitimate reasons to worry. The reassuring and prompt statements from scientists who knew the safety features of the reactors on board such ships and the lucid press release from the Ministry of Defence (MOD) allayed these fears to a great extent.
MOD had evolved the process of clearing the harbour for berthing nuclear vessels since January 5, 1988 when Indian navy inducted the nuclear powered INS Chakra into its fleet. The procedures included survey by an Environmental Survey Committee (ESC) set up by the Scientific Advisor to Defence Minister. MOD drew up a Radiation Safety Contingency Plan and implemented it prior to berthing of INS Chakra; the ship operated from 1988 to 1991.
From 15 February 2001 to 3rd November 2006, three nuclear powered ships from USA, three from France and one ship from UK visited India. There were ten visits; nine were to Goa and one to Mumbai. Indian Navy conducted the ‘International Fleet Review’ during which the French Nuclear Submarine Perle berthed in Mumbai harbour from 15 to 20 February 2001.
MOD intimates the ESC of an impending visit by a nuclear powered ship or submarine. ESC proceeds to the port well in advance before the arrival of the nuclear powered vessel and carries out a survey.
Movement of the nuclear powered ship takes place only during daylight hours, in good visibility and with escort tugs in attendance. No other ship is berthed within 200 metre radius of the nuclear powered ship. Ships berthed within 600 metre of the berth are kept at short notice, not exceeding tour hours, to get underway.
Radiation monitoring laboratories manned by scientists from Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO)/Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) and Defence personnel, set up onboard a suitable ship, undertake frequent monitoring of water and air samples.
A standing ESC has carried out a detailed survey at Chennai and cleared the visit of USS Nimitz from radiation hazard point of view. The stingent radiation monitoring protocol in place includes periodic monitoring protocol in place includes periodic monitoring and analysis of air and water samples. The agency conducts these activities under the ambit of a well rehearsed Radiation Safety Contingency Plan over seen by a Crisis Management Group and a Crisis Management Cell comprising of scientists from DRDO, BARC, Defence Laboratory, Jodhpur, representatives of the Chennai Port Trust and the Indian Navy.
In spite of the well established and frequently rehearsed procedures in place, the visit of the carrier generated some controversy. Nobody discussed the issues so far though nuclear powered ships have been visiting Indian ports periodically. It is amusing to note that even as late as July 2nd this year news agencies continue to state that USS Nimitz is the first nuclear powered ship to visit an Indian port though the press release dated July 27 from MOD gave details of ten visits during 2001-2006. Our scientists and engineers have been operating nuclear facilities including several nuclear power reactors for the past many decades, a few of these are based at coastal areas. Scientists in the Environmental Survey Laboratories have developed state of the art capability to measure radioactivity in samples of air and water from the sixties.
Plant, site and offsite emergency plans are in place at every nuclear power plant. Preparing relevant documentation and enforcing appropriate plans with the help of scientists and engineers are routine functions for the concerned authorities.
In April 1994, a ‘‘scientist’’ working with an NGO reported that his team measured high levels of radiation in several parts of Lucknow, including MLA's hostel and a few posh areas. Many national dailies and local Doordarshan covered the news.
Three scientists from the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) and the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) investigated the observations and unambiguously demonstrated that the reported increase in background radiation was due to a deficiency of the instrument. It was sensitive to light and indicated some spurious reading when its detector was exposed directly to sunlight with its window open.
The team measured radiation levels in the locations referred to in the NGO's press release and observed that they were within the range normally expected in that part of the country arising solely from natural background radiation.
AERB publicized the findings of the committee. Though the ‘scientist’’ working with the NGO accepted the conclusions of the committee on the spot, he repeated his claim later and said that he was confident he would ‘‘come out with clinching evidence’’ at an appropriate time.
In September 1994 a report from Washington stated that Pakistan was within hours of sending American supplied F-16 jets on a mission to drop conventional bombs on the nuclear reactors at Trombay. ‘‘Millions of people would have died and it would have been a holocaust beyond anything...had Pakistan attacked the two research atomic reactors, Dhruva and Cirus’’, the report warned.
In response to a senior journalist from a national news agency, I explained the topography of Trombay and the design features of the reactors. I explained that a nuclear facility may have plant, site and offsite emergency plans as appropriate. Detailed analysis has shown that releases, if any, from the reactors at Trombay even in an extreme emergency will not have any offsite impact. I told the journalist that the statement from Washington is ‘most absurd’. The item got wide media coverage and hopefully allayed some fear.
Nuclear and associated community must realize that, often, radiation or nuclear safety matters raise alarm totally disproportionate with any measurable harm. They must address these concerns promptly, honestly and openly. It is at times wiser to be proactive. Media is always receptive to those who are minding the shop !
PTI Feature
Thursday, July 05, 2007
PET links brain enzyme to violence
Generally, posters presented at conferences seldom get due attention. But a poster authored by 11 scientists from U.S. and two from U.K. at the 54th Annual Meeting of the Society of Nuclear Medicine (SNM) on June 4, this year received well deserved publicity, when Dr Henry N. Wagner Jr., past president of SNM named a brain PET (Positron Emission Tomography) image that showed the correlation between radiotracer uptake and aggressive behaviour in men as the ‘SNM 2007 I mage of the Year.’
Dr Wagner, a specialist physician who has been delivering ‘The Highlights Lectures,’ summarising trends in molecular imaging and nuclear medicine since 1977, chose the image from more than 2,000 studies including scientific presentations and posters from the 2007 meeting at Washington DC.
Brain enzyme levels
Monoamine oxidase A (MAO A) is a brain enzyme. Researchers at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) showed that healthy men with lower levels of this enzyme exhibited more aggressive personality traits.
The researchers chose normal healthy males with non-violent backgrounds as the subjects and administered the standard, Tellegen and Waller Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire to measure their verbal and nonverbal intelligence, depression, and personality traits (Dotmed.com, June 21). Questions such as whether they frequently lost their temper? Or whether they enjoyed watching violent movies? measured their aggressiveness.
Radiotracer used
The researchers gathered PET scans from each subject using clorgyline, a carbon-11 based radiotracer that binds to brain MAO A and measured the enzyme levels in their brains quantitatively.
More aggressive men had lower clorgyline uptake; less aggressive men had higher uptake. Of the 240 questions, only those about having a short temper, vindictiveness and enjoying violent movies were related to MAO A levels.
They did not find any correlation between clorgyline uptake and depression or negative emotions.
SNM 2007 Image
The SNM 2007 Image of the Year is a series of four images, one providing a view of the human gene with high and low concentrations of MAO A; another, a brain PET scan; and two images of human aggression.
According to Nellie Alia Klein, an assistant scientist at the Brookhaven National Center for Translational Neuroimaging at BNL, the study is an example of how scientists are beginning to investigate the complex relationships between an individual’s biology and his behaviour towards others.
Study of MAO A levels in relation to violent and aggressive behaviour has been a research topic for over two decades. MAO A plays an important role in metabolising neurotransmitters that affect human behaviour, and the gene that regulates MAO A activity has already been associated with aggressive and violent behaviour, Brian Casey quoted Alia-Klein (AuntMinnie.com, June 6)
The study team is indebted to Joanna S. Fowler,an SNM Member, a member of the National Academy of Sciences and a senior chemist at BNL, who developed a method to tag the MAO A enzyme and study its activity in the brain by using a PET camera.
Aggression amount
Interestingly, the amount of MAO A activity in the brain of 27 healthy men corresponded to the amount of aggression, they reported in the questionnaire.
“The less MAO A they had in the brain, the more they answered ‘yes’ to statements about taking advantage of others and causing them discomfort” said Alia-Klein.
“Our findings corroborate the relevance of brain MAO A in aggressive personality’ she clarified. “If this model of understanding is tested on individuals who engage in violent behaviour (such as domestic violence), it should show promise in the future for pharmacological intervention against abnormal violence” Alia-Klein claimed.
K.S. PARTHASARATHY
Former Secretary, AERB
ksparth@yahoo.co.uk
© Copyright 2000 - 2006 The Hind
Dr Wagner, a specialist physician who has been delivering ‘The Highlights Lectures,’ summarising trends in molecular imaging and nuclear medicine since 1977, chose the image from more than 2,000 studies including scientific presentations and posters from the 2007 meeting at Washington DC.
Brain enzyme levels
Monoamine oxidase A (MAO A) is a brain enzyme. Researchers at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) showed that healthy men with lower levels of this enzyme exhibited more aggressive personality traits.
The researchers chose normal healthy males with non-violent backgrounds as the subjects and administered the standard, Tellegen and Waller Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire to measure their verbal and nonverbal intelligence, depression, and personality traits (Dotmed.com, June 21). Questions such as whether they frequently lost their temper? Or whether they enjoyed watching violent movies? measured their aggressiveness.
Radiotracer used
The researchers gathered PET scans from each subject using clorgyline, a carbon-11 based radiotracer that binds to brain MAO A and measured the enzyme levels in their brains quantitatively.
More aggressive men had lower clorgyline uptake; less aggressive men had higher uptake. Of the 240 questions, only those about having a short temper, vindictiveness and enjoying violent movies were related to MAO A levels.
They did not find any correlation between clorgyline uptake and depression or negative emotions.
SNM 2007 Image
The SNM 2007 Image of the Year is a series of four images, one providing a view of the human gene with high and low concentrations of MAO A; another, a brain PET scan; and two images of human aggression.
According to Nellie Alia Klein, an assistant scientist at the Brookhaven National Center for Translational Neuroimaging at BNL, the study is an example of how scientists are beginning to investigate the complex relationships between an individual’s biology and his behaviour towards others.
Study of MAO A levels in relation to violent and aggressive behaviour has been a research topic for over two decades. MAO A plays an important role in metabolising neurotransmitters that affect human behaviour, and the gene that regulates MAO A activity has already been associated with aggressive and violent behaviour, Brian Casey quoted Alia-Klein (AuntMinnie.com, June 6)
The study team is indebted to Joanna S. Fowler,an SNM Member, a member of the National Academy of Sciences and a senior chemist at BNL, who developed a method to tag the MAO A enzyme and study its activity in the brain by using a PET camera.
Aggression amount
Interestingly, the amount of MAO A activity in the brain of 27 healthy men corresponded to the amount of aggression, they reported in the questionnaire.
“The less MAO A they had in the brain, the more they answered ‘yes’ to statements about taking advantage of others and causing them discomfort” said Alia-Klein.
“Our findings corroborate the relevance of brain MAO A in aggressive personality’ she clarified. “If this model of understanding is tested on individuals who engage in violent behaviour (such as domestic violence), it should show promise in the future for pharmacological intervention against abnormal violence” Alia-Klein claimed.
K.S. PARTHASARATHY
Former Secretary, AERB
ksparth@yahoo.co.uk
© Copyright 2000 - 2006 The Hind
Background radiation no evidence for ill-effects
Background radiation: no evidence for ill-effects
Cancer occurrence not consistently higher in monazite-rich areas
RECENTLY, A section of the media published stories about excess cancer deaths in the high background radiation areas (HBRA) in Kerala and Tamil Nadu.
But scientific studies do not substantiate such claims. The natural radiation levels are high in these areas primarily because of the presence of monazite (thorium ore) in soil.
Ionising radiation can cause mutations in all parts of the cell including the DNA. Dr Lucy Forster from the University of Cambridge and her team analysed mitochondrial DNA from 248 families (mostly over three generations) that have been exposed to natural radiation throughout their lives.
Widely published
They found 22 mutations in individuals from the high radiation areas and one in persons from areas of low radiation (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2002).
The media widely published the results as the authors, during interviews, suggested that people exposed to even low levels of radiation may be at risk of cancer.
BBC's headline was `cancer risk for radiation workers.' Responding to my queries, Ray Dunne, Health Reporter, BBC news online agreed that BBC did not suggest that that was the conclusion of the original research.
BBC focused on it as it was of more relevance to more people. It was purely speculative. A mutation to manifestation of cancer involves several steps.
Low doses
Responding to my e-mail query, Prof K.Sankaranarayanan, Professor Emeritus, Leiden University Medical Centre, The Netherlands, stated that at the current state of knowledge, we cannot attach any importance to these mutations from the standpoint of adverse health effects at low doses of radiation.
He must know as he wrote all the reports on genetic effects of radiation for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation!
"It might be worth considering whether to lower the allowed limits for radiation workers of reproductive age," Dr Peter Forster, one of the authors, warned.
Exposed populations
"It is premature to try to draw any conclusion concerning cancer risk from the study, let alone to call for a reduction in dose limits etc... " After all, our risk estimates (which form a part of the basis for dose limitation) are computed from epidemiological data on populations exposed to radiation. In other words, although we may have been unaware of this particular mechanism, its contribution to the total risk due to the combinations of mutations is already taken into account, automatically," Dr Jack Valentin, a geneticist and Scientific Secretary of the International Commission on Radiological Protection — the agency which recommends dose limits, clarified in an e-mail response.
Survey result
In a thorough health survey of about 400,000 people (100,000 from HBRA), researchers from the Regional Cancer Centre and Bhabha Atomic Research Centre did not see that cancer occurrence is consistently higher because of external gamma radiation exposure in the monazite-rich areas (Radiation Research, 1999).
Scientists did not observe significant differences in any of the reproductive parameters between the two population groups based on monitoring of 26,151 newborns from HBRA and 10,654 from areas of normal background radiation in the Kerala coast.
The stratification of newborns with malformations, still births or twinning showed no correlation with the natural radiation levels in different areas. (Radiation Research, 1999)
Critical review
In a critical review, of the health studies at HBRA carried out by different authors till 1981, Dr K.S.B. Rose, UK Atomic Energy Research Establishment, Harwell concluded that none of them produced any reliable evidence that the high level natural radioactivity in the area has a detectable adverse effect on the inhabitants (Nuclear Energy, 1982). More recent studies published in peer reviewed journals led to the same conclusion.
Further studies
The studies at HBRA carried out by different agencies have been scattered and limited. Epidemiology must complement molecular genetics, which currently employs tools of unparalleled sensitivity.
India, with advanced technology, must build a national institute at HBRA, modelled more or less like Radiation Effects Research Foundation, Hiroshima, to carry out "research in clinical medicine, epidemiology, statistics, genetics and molecular biology"; an advanced school of radiobiology and allied sciences may be a spin-off from the institute.
K.S.PARTHASARATHY
Former Secretary, AERB
(ksparth@yahoo.co.uk)
Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail
Sci Tech
Cancer occurrence not consistently higher in monazite-rich areas
RECENTLY, A section of the media published stories about excess cancer deaths in the high background radiation areas (HBRA) in Kerala and Tamil Nadu.
But scientific studies do not substantiate such claims. The natural radiation levels are high in these areas primarily because of the presence of monazite (thorium ore) in soil.
Ionising radiation can cause mutations in all parts of the cell including the DNA. Dr Lucy Forster from the University of Cambridge and her team analysed mitochondrial DNA from 248 families (mostly over three generations) that have been exposed to natural radiation throughout their lives.
Widely published
They found 22 mutations in individuals from the high radiation areas and one in persons from areas of low radiation (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2002).
The media widely published the results as the authors, during interviews, suggested that people exposed to even low levels of radiation may be at risk of cancer.
BBC's headline was `cancer risk for radiation workers.' Responding to my queries, Ray Dunne, Health Reporter, BBC news online agreed that BBC did not suggest that that was the conclusion of the original research.
BBC focused on it as it was of more relevance to more people. It was purely speculative. A mutation to manifestation of cancer involves several steps.
Low doses
Responding to my e-mail query, Prof K.Sankaranarayanan, Professor Emeritus, Leiden University Medical Centre, The Netherlands, stated that at the current state of knowledge, we cannot attach any importance to these mutations from the standpoint of adverse health effects at low doses of radiation.
He must know as he wrote all the reports on genetic effects of radiation for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation!
"It might be worth considering whether to lower the allowed limits for radiation workers of reproductive age," Dr Peter Forster, one of the authors, warned.
Exposed populations
"It is premature to try to draw any conclusion concerning cancer risk from the study, let alone to call for a reduction in dose limits etc... " After all, our risk estimates (which form a part of the basis for dose limitation) are computed from epidemiological data on populations exposed to radiation. In other words, although we may have been unaware of this particular mechanism, its contribution to the total risk due to the combinations of mutations is already taken into account, automatically," Dr Jack Valentin, a geneticist and Scientific Secretary of the International Commission on Radiological Protection — the agency which recommends dose limits, clarified in an e-mail response.
Survey result
In a thorough health survey of about 400,000 people (100,000 from HBRA), researchers from the Regional Cancer Centre and Bhabha Atomic Research Centre did not see that cancer occurrence is consistently higher because of external gamma radiation exposure in the monazite-rich areas (Radiation Research, 1999).
Scientists did not observe significant differences in any of the reproductive parameters between the two population groups based on monitoring of 26,151 newborns from HBRA and 10,654 from areas of normal background radiation in the Kerala coast.
The stratification of newborns with malformations, still births or twinning showed no correlation with the natural radiation levels in different areas. (Radiation Research, 1999)
Critical review
In a critical review, of the health studies at HBRA carried out by different authors till 1981, Dr K.S.B. Rose, UK Atomic Energy Research Establishment, Harwell concluded that none of them produced any reliable evidence that the high level natural radioactivity in the area has a detectable adverse effect on the inhabitants (Nuclear Energy, 1982). More recent studies published in peer reviewed journals led to the same conclusion.
Further studies
The studies at HBRA carried out by different agencies have been scattered and limited. Epidemiology must complement molecular genetics, which currently employs tools of unparalleled sensitivity.
India, with advanced technology, must build a national institute at HBRA, modelled more or less like Radiation Effects Research Foundation, Hiroshima, to carry out "research in clinical medicine, epidemiology, statistics, genetics and molecular biology"; an advanced school of radiobiology and allied sciences may be a spin-off from the institute.
K.S.PARTHASARATHY
Former Secretary, AERB
(ksparth@yahoo.co.uk)
Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail
Sci Tech
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)