Use uranium in nuke power

This article is reprinted from PTI Feature
K.S.Parthasarathy


Use uranium in Nuke power

By K S Parthasarathy

Recent discussions on the alleged hazards of uranium mining reminded me of Nigel Holloway's argument that if one has the concerned to reduce long term radioactivity in the environment, the policy should be "Uranium-don't leave it in the ground" (ATOM, June 1990). The best way is to mine it and burn it in nuclear power plants. He proves it by using elementary calculations.

Anit-nuclear activists oppose uranium mining because they believe that uranium may be used for producing nuclear weapons. To many, there is no alternative until countries that have nuclear weapons (some of them across our borders) accept nuclear disarmanment and dismantle their arsental.

Activists criticize the Government for pursuing uranium mining project; they feel that growth of nuclear power is economically wasteful, environmentally harmful and at risk of catastrophic accidents. This view needs closer scrutiny.

All power sources have adverse impacts. We do not enjoy the luxury to reject any now on the ground adverse effects.

Coal is a very impure material. A thousand mega watt coal-fired power station releases annually 5.2 tons of uranium and, 12.8 tons of thorium besides 10 other elements including mercury and arsenic. We cannot be indulgent towards coal power and consider nuclear power to be environmentally harmful.

Many believe that nuclear power has a new dawn. USA expects to construct 30 new plants. Nuclear power is a reality, fear of accidents not withstanding! Some European nations retain anti-nuclear posture; they import electricity from France which produces 78% of its electricity from Nuclear reactors!

These nations are slowly but surely shifting away from their proposed nuclear phase out!

Thirty countries produce countries nuclear power; France (78 per cent); Belgium (54 per cent); South Korea (39 per cent); Switzerland ( 37 per cent); Japan ( 30 per cent); USA (19 Per cent); Russia (16 per cent); India produces less than three per cent. We must enhance it to 10%.

If, nuclear power was economically wasteful and environmentally harmful, why so many countries depend on it for their daily needs!

There were nuclear accidents; one in 1979 at the Three Mile Island in USA and the other in 1986 at Chernobyl in the former Soviet Union. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reviewed the accidents. This led to improvements.

No one abandoned nuclear power because of these accidents! Electric companies connected 50 out of the currently operating 104 nuclear power reactors in USA to the grid since 1979; nineteen of these after 1986. Canadian companies connected all the fourteen operating reactors in Canada to the grid after 1979. Fifty-three out of 59 French reactors came on line after 1979.

We need uranium. Then only the capacity of our reactors will reach the earlier figures of over 80 per cent annually from the present 63 per cent.

Is nuclear power costly? The power from units 1 and 2 of the Tarapur Atomic Power Station is the cheapest non hydro power in the country at Paisa 93 per unit. Power from other nuclear reactors costs between Rs. 1.81 to Rs. 2.79 per unit. These rates are not high, as fifteen out of the 49 Indian generating stations sell power at higher cost, varying between Rs. 3.07 to Rs. 7.94.

Until now, the anti nuclear groups were quoting the "careful scientific health survey" of "Anumukti" in some mining villages to prove the adverse health effects. The Indian Doctors for Peace and Development (IDPD), which conducted another survey with support from the Ploughshares Fund (this US agency paid $20,000 to IDPD) now, competes with "Anumuthi".

Both "Animate" and IDPD successfully circumvented the traditional, scientific peer review and publication process by exploiting news papers and periodicals. They dished out reports littered with stories of human interest invariably spiced with melancholy and drama. They used telling pictures of human suffering to condition the viewers to connect any disease with the agent that allegedly caused it. This is a lamentable trend.

The activists produced two films. "Buddha weeps in Judged" and "Judged-The Black Magic", "acclaimed documentaries" for the activists! To others, they are skillfully edited pieces mixing carefully selected scenes and quotations to bias the viewer to a certain point of view. Shakeel Ur Rahman, the secretary of the national council of IDPD is very grateful to the film maker as the film "supported" their findings at a London conference (the Telegraph, March 5, 2008).

The paper from IDPD is a typical example of how "cherry picking" can masquerade as epidemicology!

At the very outset, the authors stated thus: "We assumed that specific health problems related to uranium mining was affecting the indigenous people disproportionately in the study villages compared to the reference villages". Then the agency goes on searching for evidence to support the assumption.

IDPD chose a structured questionnaire with 34 investigators from the vicinity of Jadugoda" and used them to collect data to prove their assumption. The arrangement helped. They belong to the villages which were carpet- bombed with weird stories on uranium hazards by motivated anti-nuclear activists for the past few years!

"Responses to some of the variables in few of the interview schedules were not found to be satisfactory and such responses were not considered for data analysis" the authors brazenly admitted to "cherry picking" of the data!

"If those were receive funds carry out such studies, is not incumbent on them to publish the results in scientific journals? I asked the Ploughshares Fund.

Ms Paul Carroll of the US agency clarified that the agency did not have such an explicit expectation in this case. "We invest not only money but confidence in our grantees, and would expect that they would conduct research and writing in keeping with the standards for the field".

She promised to pursue my line of questioning with Dr. Arun Mitra, the project director for their grant at IDPD and would convey his response to me. None of the medical committees of qualified specialists, which surveyed Jaudugoda villages found any disease which could be related to radiation exposure. Based on media reports and other documents an advocate filed a Public Interest Litigation (No 188 of 1999) in the Supreme Court of India. On April 15, 2004, the Supreme Court dismissed the Petition. The court explicitly stated that it did not find any merit in the petition.

Voice of sanity must prevail over fear and ignorance. The nation must benefit from mining uranium, a virtually useless metal except as a nuclear fuel. (PTI)

Uranium:Mine It and Burn It in Nuclear power Plants

PTI Feature

24 March 2008

Is nuclear power costly? The power from Units 1 & 2 of the Tarapur Atomic Power Station is the cheapest non hydro power in the country at Paisa 93 per unit. Power from other nuclear reactors costs between Rs 1.81 to Rs 2.79 per unit. These rates are not high, as fifteen out of the 49 Indian generating stations sell power at higher cost, varying between Rs 3.07 to Rs 7.94.-by K S Parthasarathy

Uranium:Mine It and Burn It in Nuclear power Plants

-by K S Parthasarathy
Former Secretary, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board

Recent discussions on the alleged hazards of
uranium mining reminded me of Nigel
Holloway’s argument that if one has the concern to
reduce long term radioactivity in the environment,
the policy should be “Uranium-don’t leave it in the
ground” (ATOM, June 1990). The best way is to
mine it and burn it in nuclear power plants. He
proves it by using elementary calculations.
Anti-nuclear activists oppose uranium mining
because they believe that uranium may be used for
producing nuclear weapons. To many, there is no
alternative until countries that have nuclear
weapons (some of them across our borders) accept
nuclear disarmament and dismantle their arsenal.
Activists criticize the government for pursuing
uranium mining project; they feel that growth of
nuclear power is economically wasteful,
environmentally harmful and at risk of catastrophic
accidents... This view needs closer scrutiny.
All power sources have adverse impacts. We do
not enjoy the luxury to reject any now on the ground
of adverse effects.

Coal is a very impure material. A thousand mega
watt coal-fired power station releases annually 5.2
tons of uranium and, 12.8 tons of thorium besides
10 other elements including mercury and arsenic.
We cannot be indulgent towards coal power and
consider nuclear power to be environmentally
harmful.

Many believe that nuclear power has a new
dawn. USA expects to construct 30 new plants.
Nuclear power is a reality, fear of accidents not
withstanding! Some European nations retain antinuclear
posture; they import electricity from France
which produces 78 % of its electricity from nuclear
reactors!

These nations are slowly but surely shifting away
from their proposed nuclear phase out!
Thirty countries produce nuclear
power; France (78%); Belgium (54%); South Korea
(39%); Switzerland (37%); Japan (30%); USA
(19%); Russia (16%); India produces less than three
percent. We must enhance it to 10%.
If, nuclear power was economically wasteful and
environmentally harmful, why so many countries
depend on it for their daily needs!

There were nuclear accidents; one in 1979 at
the Three Mile Island in USA and the other in 1986
at Chernobyl in the former Soviet Union.
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
reviewed the accidents. This led to improvements.
No one abandoned nuclear power because of
these accidents! Electric companies connected 50
out of the currently operating 104 nuclear power
reactors in USA to the grid since 1979; nineteen of
these after 1986. Canadian companies connected
all the fourteen operating reactors in Canada to the
grid after 1979. Fifty-three out of 59 French reactors
came on line after 1979.

Is nuclear power costly? The power from Units
1 & 2 of the Tarapur Atomic Power Station is the
cheapest non hydro power in the country at Paisa
93 per unit. Power from other nuclear reactors costs
between Rs 1.81 to Rs 2.79 per unit. These rates
are not high, as fifteen out of the 49 Indian
generating stations sell power at higher cost, varying
between Rs 3.07 to Rs 7.94.

Until now, the anti nuclear groups were quoting
the “careful scientific health survey” of”Anumukti”
in some mining villages to prove the adverse health
effects. The Indian Doctors for Peace and
Development (IDPD), which conducted another
survey with support from by the Ploughshares Fund
(this US agency paid $20,000 to IDPD) now,
competes with “Anumukti”
Both “Anumukti” and IDPD successfully
circumvented the traditional, scientific peer review
and publication process by exploiting news papers
and periodicals. They dished out reports littered with
stories of human interest invariably spiced with
melancholy and drama. They used telling pictures
of human suffering to condition the viewer to
connect any disease with the agent that allegedly
caused it. This is a lamentable trend.

The activists produced two films. “Buddha
weeps in Jadugoda” and “Jadugoda-The Black Magic”,
“acclaimed documentaries” for the activists! To
others, they are skillfully edited pieces mixing
carefully selected scenes and quotations to bias the
viewer to a certain point of view. Shakeel Ur
Rahman, the secretary of the national council of
IDPD is very grateful to the film maker as the film
“supported” their findings at a London conference
(the Telegraph, March 5, 2008).

The paper from IDPD is a typical example of
how “cherry picking” can masquerade as
epidemiology!
At the very outset, the authors stated thus: “We
assumed that specific health problems related to
uranium mining was affecting the indigenous people
disproportionately in the study villages compared
to the reference villages”. Then the agency goes on
searching for evidence to support the assumption.
IDPD chose a structured questionnaire with
34 investigators from the vicinity of Jadugoda” and
used them to collect data to prove their assumption.

The arrangement helped. They belong to the villages
which were carpet –bombed with weird stories on
uranium hazards by motivated anti nuclear activists
for the past few years!

“ Responses to some of the variables in few of
the interview schedules were not found to be
satisfactory and such responses were not considered
for data analysis” the authors brazenly admitted
to “cherry picking” of the data!
“If those who receive funds carry out such
studies, is it not incumbent on them to publish the
results in scientific journals?” I asked the
Ploughshares Fund.

Ms Paul Carroll of the US agency clarified that
the agency did not have such an explicit expectation
in this case. “We invest not only money but
confidence in our grantees, and would expect that
they would conduct research and writing in keeping
with the standards for the field.”

She promised to pursue my line of questioning
with Dr. Arun Mitra, the project director for their
grant at IDPD and would convey his response to
me. None of the medical committees of qualified
specialists, which surveyed Jaudugoda villages
found any disease which could be related to
radiation exposure. Based on media reports and
other documents an advocate filed a Public Interest
Litigation (No 188 of 1999) in the Supreme Court
of India. On April 15, 2004, the Supreme Court
dismissed the petition. The court explicitly stated
that it did not find any merit in the petition.
Voice of sanity must prevail over fear and
ignorance. The nation must benefit from mining
uranium, a virtually useless metal except as a nuclear
fuel.

Coal-fired power plants take hits

The article in the Tribune reviews the status of building new coal-powered power plants in the USA. There is strident opposition, primarily because of the concerns on global warming.

K.S.Parthasarathy



Coal-fired power plants take hits
K.S. Parthasarathy

Coal-fired power plants are taking hits from all sides. The unkindest cut to future coal-fired power generation came recently when Samuel Bodman, Secretary, the US Department of Energy (DOE), declared that the Bush administration had decided to withdraw funding to FutureGen, the US government’s effort to develop a “clean coal” power plant.

The plant would have turned coal into hydrogen-rich synthetic gas, generating electricity while pumping carbon dioxide underground for permanent storage (The Wall Street Journal, WSJ, February 2, 2008). The project had international participation.

The DOE found that the cost of the project soared to $1.8 billion, nearly double the original estimates.

Now activists appeared to have shifted their attention from nuclear power plants to coal-fired plants.

Referring to the example of Richard D. Libert, a Republican, a cattle rancher and a retired army lieutenant colonel, the New York Times observed that “an increasingly vocal, potent and widespread anti-coal movement” is developing in the West.

Besides filing law suits, the environmentalists assert that “these coal plants don’t make any sense, whether from an economic or environmental or property-rights standpoint”.

On October 18, 2007, the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE), USA, rejected a permit to Sunflower Electric Power to construct a pair of 700-megawatt, coal-fired electric power plants in Holcomb, a town in the western part of the state; the department believes that the greenhouse gas emitted by it threatens public health and the environment.

The decision marks a victory for environmental groups that are fighting proposals for new coal fired plants around the country.

We do not know of the impact the decision will have on coal power plants. In the USA, all combustion facilities need permits. The KDHE’s decision is the first of its kind taken by a government agency citing carbon dioxide emissions as the reason to reject a permit.

“It would be irresponsible to ignore emerging information about the contribution of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to climate change and the potential harm to our environment and health, if we do nothing”, The Washington Post quoted Roderick L. Bremby, Secretary of the KDHE, as saying.

The writing on the wall was clear. On April 2, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Clean Air Act gives US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the authority to regulate emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Court cases around the country had been held up to await the decision in this case. Among them is a challenge to the environmental agency’s refusal to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, now pending in the federal appeals court.

Between 2000 and 2006, US utilities submitted over 150 coal plant proposals. By 2007, they constructed 10 of them; 25 additional plants were under construction. But during 2007, 59 proposed plants were cancelled, abandoned, or put on hold.

Concerns about global warming played a major role in 15 of these cases. Coal plants are being eliminated from long-range plans. The renewables are elbowing them out.

Of the 59 plants which took the hits, 44 were abandoned by the utilities themselves because of increase in construction costs, insufficient financing or failure to receive expected government grants, lowering of estimates of power demand and concerns about future carbon regulations.

Citigroup Inc, J.P.Morgan Chase & Co. and Morgan Stanley, three of Wall Street’s biggest investment banks announced the formation of The Carbon Principles, climate change guidelines for advisors and lenders to power companies in the United States.

The new environmental standards will make it harder for companies to get financing to build coal power plants in the U.S. The banks will factor in the cost of emission capping regulations while lending money.

Twenty something in the Wall Street rather than ‘environmentalists’ decided the fate of nuclear power in the 70s and 80s!

With the development of clean coal technology stalled, nuclear power appears to have a brighter future; not quite, nuclear power is equally costly. Future energy options remain unpredictable.

K.S. Parthasarathy is former Secretary, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board

Image gently, bring down CT dose to kids

Excessive and avoidable radiation dose to children undergoing CT scan examinations is currently the most important radiation safety issue which attracted the attention of
several professional associations in USA. Thirteen of them jointly started the Image Gently web page which provides valuable information on the topic. An article in the Science & Technology section of the Hindu a muti-edition daily carries my article on the topic.

K.S.Parthasarathy



Date:06/03/2008 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/thehindu/seta/2008/03/06/stories/2008030650071500.htm
________________________________________
Back Sci Tech



Image gently, bring down CT dose to kids
Last July, 13 U.S. associations including the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM), the Society for Paediatric Radiology (SPR), the American College of Radiology (ACR) and the American Society of Radiologic Technologists (ASRT) founded the Alliance for Radiation Safety in Paediatric Imaging.
Collective effort
They launched the Image Gently campaign as a collective effort to bring down radiation doses to children. Its objective is to ensure that medical protocols for imaging children keep pace with technology advances (medicalphysicsweb, February 1, 2008).
Specialists became aware of the safety significance of paediatric CT examinations when the American Journal of Roentgenology (AJR) expressed serious concern on unnecessary radiation doses to children (AJR, February, 2001). On November 2, 2001, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a Public Health Notification on the topic.
In December 2001, the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board brought the USFDA advisory to the notice of the managements of CT Units in India.
Image acquisition
The growth of CT use in children has been driven primarily by the decrease in the time needed to perform a scan — now less than 1 second — largely eliminating the need for anaesthesia to prevent the child from moving during image acquisition (The New England Journal of Medicine, NEJM, November 29, 2007). The children get exposed to radiation doses higher than necessary because many technologists use the same x-ray exposure factors for Computed Tomography (CT) examinations of children as those used for adults. Children are more sensitive to radiation than adults, as their tissues are developing.
U.S. figures
Nearly seven million CT procedures are carried out annually in the U.S. among children of all ages, with 33 per cent on children under 10 years of age. Surveys at 71 CT Units in India revealed that on an average 8.9 per cent of CT procedures are on children; paediatric protocols are not used in 32 of these installations. These centres are exposing children to unjustifiably high radiation doses.
CT examination is beneficial, when it is medically needed. But there is a need to reduce dosage.
Tube current
Researchers from the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Delhi demonstrated that the doses to children can be halved without reducing clinical benefits simply by lowering the tube current (Clinical Radiology 2005).
David Brenner, Eric J. Hall from Columbia University argued that there is direct evidence from epidemiological studies that the organ doses corresponding to a common CT study result in an increased risk of cancer. (The NEJM, 2007). “The evidence is reasonably convincing for adults and very convincing for children,” they asserted.
Dr Marilyn J. Goske, who chairs the Alliance for Radiation Safety in Paediatric Imaging, conceded that there may be disagreement within the medical community about the accuracy of the risk models.
Indisputable fact
“These arguments will not be settled in the near term. However one fact is indisputable; we must continue our efforts to do a better job of reducing radiation dose to children if and when they need a CT scan”, she wrote in an editorial (The AJR, February 2008)
Child-sizing a must
Goske suggested that the technologists must reduce or “child-size” the amount of radiation used; scan only when necessary; scan only the indicated region and scan only once; multiphase scanning is usually not necessary in children.
Everyone handling a CT Unit must read http://www.pedrad.org/associations/5364/ig, the Image Gently web page. Medical literature contains protocols to reduce radiation doses; many of these are scanner specific and not transferable to other units (Image Gently, 2007).
CT centres in India, in consultation with manufacturers may develop appropriate protocols using the “Paediatric CT Protocol Guidance” published at the Image Gently website. Those who do not, must not carry out CT examinations of children.
K.S. PARTHASARATHY

FORMER SECRETARY, AERB
© Copyright 2000 - 2008 The Hindu