DAILY EXCELSIOR Julty 12, 2007 (PTI feature)
‘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
Friday, December 14, 2007
Architects of nuclear India
Close collaboration between Dr Homi Bhbabha and Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru helped to lay the foundations of nuclear India. Both of them can be considered as the architects of nuclear India
K.S.Parthasarathy
Daily Excelsior
November 27, 2007
(A PTI Feature)
Architects of Nuclear India
By K S Parthasarathy
We celebrated the 97th birth anniversary of Dr Homi Bhabha on October 30, 2007. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru's 118th birth anniversary was on November 14, 2007. Nehru helped to translate Bhabha's dreams into reality. They were truly the architects of nuclear India.
On January 4, 1947, while laying the foundation stone of the National Physical Laboratory at New Delhi Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru spoke thus on the necessary of atomic research in India : ‘‘... I do not see how we can lag behind in this very important matter, because atomic energy is going to play a vast and dominant part, I suppose, in the future shape of things... it will make power mobile and this mobility of power can make industry develop anywhere. We will not be tied up by accidents of geography....’’
Dr Bhabha's note on the organisation of atomic research in India submitted to Nehru on April 26, 1948, showed amazingly similar views.
‘‘The report submitted to you, Mr Prime Minister, on my return from Europe and America collected evidence which made it reasonable to believe that within the next couple of decades atomic energy would play an important part in the economy and the industry of countries and that, if India did not wish to fall even further behind industrially advanced countries of the world, it would be necessary to take more energetic measures to develop this branch of science and appropriate larger sums for the purpose.’’
‘‘.. our immediate programme should include extensive and intense search for sources of uranium. These geological surveys would take at least two years if carried out in any careful and exhaustive way and it is possible that their result may be negative. In that case, India would either have to depend on an agreement with a foreign power for the purchase of her uranium... ‘‘Bhabha pleaded. The search continues !
On the first International Conference on the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy at Vienna he wrote: ‘‘... What is so gratifying is the cordial atmosphere in which all the... discussions were carried out, entirely free from political bias or cold war hostility. Besides the regular sessions, a number of informal meetings were held among scientists including those from the so called iron curtain countries, at which scientific problems were discussed fully and freely’’. He knew that such ambience at the Geneva conference would be of special interest to his mentor.
By then, the Bandung Conference of Afro-Asian countries was over. Nehru was shortly destined to play the role of the leader of the Non Alignment Movement.
Occasionally, Bhabha led wars to defend his turf. He wanted to keep the construction of the Canada Indian Reactor, a highly technical project, exclusively with the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE). As the project was started strictly outside the Colombo Plan, he argued that there is clearly no advantage in routing related correspondence through the Department of Economic Affairs. ‘‘Indeed it will slow down the entire process’’ he cautioned. Nehru concurred.
Bhabha obtained exemption from certain Government regulations by writing to Nehru who always endorsed his decisions. These include provision of cars at the disposal of scientists during the commissioning of Apsara reactor and supply lunch and dinner at the work site at Trombay.
Bhabha deftly drafted the resolution settting up the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). He set up AEC, as an organisation ‘‘with full authority to plan and implement the various measures on sound technical and economic principles and free from all non-essential restrictions or needlessly inelastic rules’’.
‘‘The special requirements of atomic energy, the newness of the field, the strategic nature of its activities and its international and political significance have to be borne in mind in devising such an organization’’, the resolution stipulated. AEC has the powers of the Government of India in all its Ministries, in so far as the work of the Department of Atomic Energy is concerned.
Dr Bhabha managed to set up the Secretariat of the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) at Bombay and not in Delhi. The Department secured exemption from all reference of its civil engineering and construction work to the Central Public Works Department and of its purchase from the Directorate General of Supplies and Disposals. Similarly DAE follows its own procedures to recruit its staff and need not approach the Union Public Service Commission. Bhabha could secure the support of the highest echelons of the bureaucracy because of his rapport with Panditji.
Nehru's letter to ‘‘My Dear Homi’’ written on July 29, 1956 revealed that there was no barrier between these leaders. While discussing the composition of delegates of an International Conference at Vienna, Nehru cautioned, ‘‘I find that some of the other major countries are sending non-technical people as leaders of their delegations. It would probably be advisable for you and your scientific colleagues not to get mixed up too much with the political aspects.’’
While referring to the need to develop scientific temper, Nehru was brutally objective.
He did not spare even scientists. ‘‘--I do not mean that even now our big scientists are really scientific in mind, which I find often they are not. They are scientific in their laboratories; take them outside these and they appear to be frail human beings...’’
After staying in Cambridge for two days in June 1959 to receive an honorary degree of Doctor of Science, Bhabha wrote, ‘‘My dear Bhai, this was evidently a particularly good year for roses. I have never seen such profusion of beautiful roses as was to be found... at the back adjoining the river’’.....
....‘‘I hope some of the scientific laboratories and establishments we are building today will have the beauty of their own, which will have its due effect on those who work here.
I think both Trombay and the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research will be architecturally, and botanically beautiful when they are completed..’’ He eloquently articulated his vision.
Nehru must have acknowledged Homi's sentiments by looking blissfully at the red rose on his jacket !
(PTI) .
K.S.Parthasarathy
Daily Excelsior
November 27, 2007
(A PTI Feature)
Architects of Nuclear India
By K S Parthasarathy
We celebrated the 97th birth anniversary of Dr Homi Bhabha on October 30, 2007. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru's 118th birth anniversary was on November 14, 2007. Nehru helped to translate Bhabha's dreams into reality. They were truly the architects of nuclear India.
On January 4, 1947, while laying the foundation stone of the National Physical Laboratory at New Delhi Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru spoke thus on the necessary of atomic research in India : ‘‘... I do not see how we can lag behind in this very important matter, because atomic energy is going to play a vast and dominant part, I suppose, in the future shape of things... it will make power mobile and this mobility of power can make industry develop anywhere. We will not be tied up by accidents of geography....’’
Dr Bhabha's note on the organisation of atomic research in India submitted to Nehru on April 26, 1948, showed amazingly similar views.
‘‘The report submitted to you, Mr Prime Minister, on my return from Europe and America collected evidence which made it reasonable to believe that within the next couple of decades atomic energy would play an important part in the economy and the industry of countries and that, if India did not wish to fall even further behind industrially advanced countries of the world, it would be necessary to take more energetic measures to develop this branch of science and appropriate larger sums for the purpose.’’
‘‘.. our immediate programme should include extensive and intense search for sources of uranium. These geological surveys would take at least two years if carried out in any careful and exhaustive way and it is possible that their result may be negative. In that case, India would either have to depend on an agreement with a foreign power for the purchase of her uranium... ‘‘Bhabha pleaded. The search continues !
On the first International Conference on the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy at Vienna he wrote: ‘‘... What is so gratifying is the cordial atmosphere in which all the... discussions were carried out, entirely free from political bias or cold war hostility. Besides the regular sessions, a number of informal meetings were held among scientists including those from the so called iron curtain countries, at which scientific problems were discussed fully and freely’’. He knew that such ambience at the Geneva conference would be of special interest to his mentor.
By then, the Bandung Conference of Afro-Asian countries was over. Nehru was shortly destined to play the role of the leader of the Non Alignment Movement.
Occasionally, Bhabha led wars to defend his turf. He wanted to keep the construction of the Canada Indian Reactor, a highly technical project, exclusively with the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE). As the project was started strictly outside the Colombo Plan, he argued that there is clearly no advantage in routing related correspondence through the Department of Economic Affairs. ‘‘Indeed it will slow down the entire process’’ he cautioned. Nehru concurred.
Bhabha obtained exemption from certain Government regulations by writing to Nehru who always endorsed his decisions. These include provision of cars at the disposal of scientists during the commissioning of Apsara reactor and supply lunch and dinner at the work site at Trombay.
Bhabha deftly drafted the resolution settting up the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). He set up AEC, as an organisation ‘‘with full authority to plan and implement the various measures on sound technical and economic principles and free from all non-essential restrictions or needlessly inelastic rules’’.
‘‘The special requirements of atomic energy, the newness of the field, the strategic nature of its activities and its international and political significance have to be borne in mind in devising such an organization’’, the resolution stipulated. AEC has the powers of the Government of India in all its Ministries, in so far as the work of the Department of Atomic Energy is concerned.
Dr Bhabha managed to set up the Secretariat of the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) at Bombay and not in Delhi. The Department secured exemption from all reference of its civil engineering and construction work to the Central Public Works Department and of its purchase from the Directorate General of Supplies and Disposals. Similarly DAE follows its own procedures to recruit its staff and need not approach the Union Public Service Commission. Bhabha could secure the support of the highest echelons of the bureaucracy because of his rapport with Panditji.
Nehru's letter to ‘‘My Dear Homi’’ written on July 29, 1956 revealed that there was no barrier between these leaders. While discussing the composition of delegates of an International Conference at Vienna, Nehru cautioned, ‘‘I find that some of the other major countries are sending non-technical people as leaders of their delegations. It would probably be advisable for you and your scientific colleagues not to get mixed up too much with the political aspects.’’
While referring to the need to develop scientific temper, Nehru was brutally objective.
He did not spare even scientists. ‘‘--I do not mean that even now our big scientists are really scientific in mind, which I find often they are not. They are scientific in their laboratories; take them outside these and they appear to be frail human beings...’’
After staying in Cambridge for two days in June 1959 to receive an honorary degree of Doctor of Science, Bhabha wrote, ‘‘My dear Bhai, this was evidently a particularly good year for roses. I have never seen such profusion of beautiful roses as was to be found... at the back adjoining the river’’.....
....‘‘I hope some of the scientific laboratories and establishments we are building today will have the beauty of their own, which will have its due effect on those who work here.
I think both Trombay and the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research will be architecturally, and botanically beautiful when they are completed..’’ He eloquently articulated his vision.
Nehru must have acknowledged Homi's sentiments by looking blissfully at the red rose on his jacket !
(PTI) .
Thursday, December 13, 2007
The first report on how India achieves nuclear safety
The article is a summary of the first National report for the Convention on Nuclear Safety submitted by India in September 2007 to the fourth Review Meeting of Contracting parties to be held in April 2008
K.S.Parthasarathy
Date:13/12/2007 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/thehindu/seta/2007/12/13/stories/2007121350101500.htm Sci Tech
The first report on how India achieves nuclear safety
It lists important safety improvements at each power station, starting with Tarapur
The average capacity factor for the Indian nuclear reactors for 2005-06 was 74 per cent
Among other measures, reduction of radiation doses to workers is notable
Recent debates on the Indo-US agreement for cooperation concerning the peaceful use of nuclear energy compelled the media to look at nuclear power more benignly. Members of the public realised for the first time that nuclear power has a role to play in the energy mix of the country. Those who have concerns on nuclear safety, must read the first ‘National Report for the Convention on Nuclear Safety (September 2007),’ to find out how India achieves nuclear safety . (Please see www.aerb.gov.in or www.dae.gov.in for the text of the report.)
Measures explained
The 208 page report explains the measures taken by India to implement the Convention on Nuclear Safety, the first international legal instrument dealing directly with the safety of civilian nuclear power plants. The Fourth Review Meeting of the Contracting Parties scheduled to be held in April 2008 will examine the report along with 13 others including those from Canada, France, Russia and U.S. The international peer review is unique to the nuclear industry.
The report highlights the steps taken to implement Articles 6 to 19 (Chapter 2 titled ‘Obligations’). It lists important safety improvements at each power station starting with the Tarapur Atomic Power Station (TAPS) which began its operation in 1969. The comprehensive safety review and implementation of safety up-gradations for continued operation of TAPS-1 and 2 are notable.
The report gives graphically the electrical power generated by each reactor in India and its availability and capacity factors. Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL) deserves congratulations for consistent performance for the past few years.
The average capacity factor for the Indian nuclear power reactors for 2005-06 was 74 per cent. India must compete with other countries now. The U.S. recorded an average capacity factor of 89.6 per cent in 2006 for 105 reactors with 29 reactors exceeding 95 per cent. The comprehensive safety assessments carried out after major events such as the accident at Three Mile Island in the U.S. and that at Chernobyl in the former Soviet Union are very informative. NPCIL implemented the recommendations arising from these assessments.
Following the pressure tube failure incident at the Pickring-2 reactor in Canada, India introduced a major programme to ensure the integrity of the pressure tubes in Indian Pressurized Heavy Water Reactors by enhancing the design as well as in-service-inspection and rehabilitation technologies.
The thoroughness with which AERB reviewed the fire incident at Narora in March 1993 and the tsunami incident at Kalpakkam in December 2004 and ensured implementation of its recommendations is reassuring.
Seismic re-evaluation of old generation reactors, enhanced inspection of certain systems and components, ageing management and reduction of radiation doses to workers are notable.
The directive prescribing ‘formal and elaborate retraining and re-licensing of all the frontline operating staff and the station management personnel’ following a safety-related incident at the Kakrapar Atomic Power Station reflects the no-nonsense attitude of AERB
The report describes the legislative and regulatory framework including the Atomic Energy Act 1962 and the rules framed under it and other legal instruments such as Indian Electricity Act 2003, Environment (Protection) Act 1986 etc.
It highlights the functions and responsibilities of AERB, the Board’s organisational structure and its position in the government which ensures administrative and financial independence in its functioning.
Forum member
AERB participates in the activities of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
It is a member of the forum for the CANDU senior regulators with six other countries operating pressurized heavy water reactors. AERB and the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission have held several meetings on safety related topics.
The Board has a cooperation agreement with the French Directorate General of Nuclear Safety and Radiation Protection and the Federal Nuclear and Radiation Safety Authority of Russia.
The measures India takes to comply with other Articles covering the responsibilities of the licensee, financial and human resources, capabilities and limitations of human performance, quality assurance, assessment and verification of safety, radiation protection, siting, design and construction and emergency preparedness are very comprehensive.
Acronyms, jargon
The report contains some tongue-twisting acronyms and incomprehensible jargon (defendable as the report is meant for scientists and engineers!); it also contains a wealth of useful information patiently collected, collated and interpreted from government documents, incident reports, minutes of meetings and publications.
The feedback from the review meetings will help to enhance nuclear safety in countries operating nuclear power plants.
K.S.PARTHASARATHY
Former Secretary, AERB
( ksparth@yahoo.co.uk )
© Copyright 2000 - 2007 The Hindu
K.S.Parthasarathy
Date:13/12/2007 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/thehindu/seta/2007/12/13/stories/2007121350101500.htm Sci Tech
The first report on how India achieves nuclear safety
It lists important safety improvements at each power station, starting with Tarapur
The average capacity factor for the Indian nuclear reactors for 2005-06 was 74 per cent
Among other measures, reduction of radiation doses to workers is notable
Recent debates on the Indo-US agreement for cooperation concerning the peaceful use of nuclear energy compelled the media to look at nuclear power more benignly. Members of the public realised for the first time that nuclear power has a role to play in the energy mix of the country. Those who have concerns on nuclear safety, must read the first ‘National Report for the Convention on Nuclear Safety (September 2007),’ to find out how India achieves nuclear safety . (Please see www.aerb.gov.in or www.dae.gov.in for the text of the report.)
Measures explained
The 208 page report explains the measures taken by India to implement the Convention on Nuclear Safety, the first international legal instrument dealing directly with the safety of civilian nuclear power plants. The Fourth Review Meeting of the Contracting Parties scheduled to be held in April 2008 will examine the report along with 13 others including those from Canada, France, Russia and U.S. The international peer review is unique to the nuclear industry.
The report highlights the steps taken to implement Articles 6 to 19 (Chapter 2 titled ‘Obligations’). It lists important safety improvements at each power station starting with the Tarapur Atomic Power Station (TAPS) which began its operation in 1969. The comprehensive safety review and implementation of safety up-gradations for continued operation of TAPS-1 and 2 are notable.
The report gives graphically the electrical power generated by each reactor in India and its availability and capacity factors. Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL) deserves congratulations for consistent performance for the past few years.
The average capacity factor for the Indian nuclear power reactors for 2005-06 was 74 per cent. India must compete with other countries now. The U.S. recorded an average capacity factor of 89.6 per cent in 2006 for 105 reactors with 29 reactors exceeding 95 per cent. The comprehensive safety assessments carried out after major events such as the accident at Three Mile Island in the U.S. and that at Chernobyl in the former Soviet Union are very informative. NPCIL implemented the recommendations arising from these assessments.
Following the pressure tube failure incident at the Pickring-2 reactor in Canada, India introduced a major programme to ensure the integrity of the pressure tubes in Indian Pressurized Heavy Water Reactors by enhancing the design as well as in-service-inspection and rehabilitation technologies.
The thoroughness with which AERB reviewed the fire incident at Narora in March 1993 and the tsunami incident at Kalpakkam in December 2004 and ensured implementation of its recommendations is reassuring.
Seismic re-evaluation of old generation reactors, enhanced inspection of certain systems and components, ageing management and reduction of radiation doses to workers are notable.
The directive prescribing ‘formal and elaborate retraining and re-licensing of all the frontline operating staff and the station management personnel’ following a safety-related incident at the Kakrapar Atomic Power Station reflects the no-nonsense attitude of AERB
The report describes the legislative and regulatory framework including the Atomic Energy Act 1962 and the rules framed under it and other legal instruments such as Indian Electricity Act 2003, Environment (Protection) Act 1986 etc.
It highlights the functions and responsibilities of AERB, the Board’s organisational structure and its position in the government which ensures administrative and financial independence in its functioning.
Forum member
AERB participates in the activities of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
It is a member of the forum for the CANDU senior regulators with six other countries operating pressurized heavy water reactors. AERB and the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission have held several meetings on safety related topics.
The Board has a cooperation agreement with the French Directorate General of Nuclear Safety and Radiation Protection and the Federal Nuclear and Radiation Safety Authority of Russia.
The measures India takes to comply with other Articles covering the responsibilities of the licensee, financial and human resources, capabilities and limitations of human performance, quality assurance, assessment and verification of safety, radiation protection, siting, design and construction and emergency preparedness are very comprehensive.
Acronyms, jargon
The report contains some tongue-twisting acronyms and incomprehensible jargon (defendable as the report is meant for scientists and engineers!); it also contains a wealth of useful information patiently collected, collated and interpreted from government documents, incident reports, minutes of meetings and publications.
The feedback from the review meetings will help to enhance nuclear safety in countries operating nuclear power plants.
K.S.PARTHASARATHY
Former Secretary, AERB
( ksparth@yahoo.co.uk )
© Copyright 2000 - 2007 The Hindu
Thursday, December 06, 2007
Do cancers soar with CT scans?
Recently Drs David Brenner and Eric Hall claimed that about 1.5 to 2 % of cancers in USA are caused by CT scans. The paper was published by the NEJM on Novemeber 29, 2007.Profesional associations such as the American College of Radiology (ACR), the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) and the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) published critiques on the paper.
Mostly they felt that the conclusions in the paper can create a scare in the minds of public and keep them away from much needed medical procedures. My paper in the Science & Technology issue of the Hindu states that in spite of the controversies, there are many key points of agreement among all.CT Scan is a very useful imaging modality in medically indicated examinations.
Specialist agencies across the board fear that the public may not understand complex scientific arguments. They tend to forget the fact that physicians face the challenge every day. The public will resolve the issues if specialists give all the inputs.
K.S.Parthasarathy
Do cancers soar with CT scans?
Most CT scans result in limited exposure
Benefits from CT scans are not without risks
Useful tool: CT scans are immensely useful in diagnosis and in the guidance of therapeutic procedures.
Recently, Drs David Brenner and Eric Hall, researchers in the Columbia University Medical Centre, New York contended that about 0.4 per cent of all cancers in the U.S. may be attributable to radiation from computed tomography (CT) studies.
They claimed that they used the most scientific radiation risk estimates, and the data on the use of CT from 1991 to 1996.
If current data are used, it may be as high as 1.5 to 2 per cent, they reported in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM, November 29, 2007).
Low level radiation
The American College of Radiology (ACR), the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) and the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) reacted to the NEJM paper with predictable alacrity. The effect of low level radiation on living beings continues to be controversial (The Hindu, July 14, 2005).
ACR declared that certain conclusions and comparisons made in the NEJM study may be inappropriate and cause patients to mistakenly avoid getting life-saving medical imaging care.
“Patients need accurate information on which to base their healthcare decisions. They may be terribly confused and unduly distressed by some of the statements in this study,” Dr Arl Van Moore Jr., chairman of the ACR Board of Chancellors cautioned.
“The Brenner article illuminates many issues of importance in regards to CT, but the CT experts in the AAPM feel that much of the message of this article may be misconstrued or misunderstood by the press or by the public who may not be experts in CT,” AAPM warned.
“Advancing technology has increasingly allowed imaging exams to replace more invasive techniques, but has also resulted in increased radiation exposure for Americans” ACR conceded.
ACR and AAPM faulted the study for equating the survivors of atomic bombings to patients undergoing CT scans.
“Most CT examinations are conducted under controlled conditions. They result in limited radiation exposure to a small portion of the body.
Atomic bomb survivors experienced instantaneous radiation exposure to the whole body,” ACR clarified. There were other differences. Brenner and Hall argued that survivors of atomic bombings who received doses similar to patients undergoing CT scans did suffer excess cancers.
AAPM wanted that patients should discuss with their physicians not only the radiation risks of the CT examination, but the risks of not having the diagnostic information that CT provides.
AAPM acknowledged that David Brenner and Eric Hall are esteemed scientists and respected experts in radiation risk and AAPM’s release is in no way meant to impeach or undermine their impressive credentials.
Radiologists, medical physicists and other radiology professionals have long recognised the need to implement CT practice conscientiously and maintain rigorous standards of practice (RSNA, 2007).
The NEJM study focussed attention on overuse of CT. One million children and 20 million adults in the U.S. undergo unnecessary CT scan procedures annually.
Some researchers believe that estimating the number of cancers at low radiation doses has no scientific basis. Others like Brenner and Hall disagree.
But all agree on some key points. CT scans are immensely useful in diagnosing diseases and trauma and in the guidance of interventional and therapeutic procedures.
Not risk free
However, these benefits are not without risks. The individual risk from X-rays associated with a CT scan is quite small, compared to the benefits of diagnosis in medically needed procedures.
It is important to keep the radiation doses during medical X-ray procedures as low as reasonably achievable.
Using CT for routine screening is unjustified (The Hindu, January, 5, 2006). Specialists do not recommend CT coronary angiography of asymptomatic patients for assessing occult coronary artery disease (The Hindu, November 2, 2006).
Physicians must make every effort to reduce radiation dose in CT procedures, especially for children (The Hindu, February 8, 2007). CT should not be used to screen persons for lung cancer (The Hindu, September 13, 2007).
Complex arguments
Specialist agencies across the board fear that the public may not understand complex scientific arguments.
Whether cancers soar with CT scans cannot be answered conclusively. Prudence demands caution in using this powerful medical imaging modality.
They tend to forget the fact that physicians face the challenge every day. The public will resolve the issues if specialists give all the inputs.
K.S. PARTHASARATHY
Former Secretary, AERB
( ksparth@yahoo.co.uk)
© Copyright 2000 - 2007 The Hindu
Mostly they felt that the conclusions in the paper can create a scare in the minds of public and keep them away from much needed medical procedures. My paper in the Science & Technology issue of the Hindu states that in spite of the controversies, there are many key points of agreement among all.CT Scan is a very useful imaging modality in medically indicated examinations.
Specialist agencies across the board fear that the public may not understand complex scientific arguments. They tend to forget the fact that physicians face the challenge every day. The public will resolve the issues if specialists give all the inputs.
K.S.Parthasarathy
Do cancers soar with CT scans?
Most CT scans result in limited exposure
Benefits from CT scans are not without risks
Useful tool: CT scans are immensely useful in diagnosis and in the guidance of therapeutic procedures.
Recently, Drs David Brenner and Eric Hall, researchers in the Columbia University Medical Centre, New York contended that about 0.4 per cent of all cancers in the U.S. may be attributable to radiation from computed tomography (CT) studies.
They claimed that they used the most scientific radiation risk estimates, and the data on the use of CT from 1991 to 1996.
If current data are used, it may be as high as 1.5 to 2 per cent, they reported in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM, November 29, 2007).
Low level radiation
The American College of Radiology (ACR), the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) and the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) reacted to the NEJM paper with predictable alacrity. The effect of low level radiation on living beings continues to be controversial (The Hindu, July 14, 2005).
ACR declared that certain conclusions and comparisons made in the NEJM study may be inappropriate and cause patients to mistakenly avoid getting life-saving medical imaging care.
“Patients need accurate information on which to base their healthcare decisions. They may be terribly confused and unduly distressed by some of the statements in this study,” Dr Arl Van Moore Jr., chairman of the ACR Board of Chancellors cautioned.
“The Brenner article illuminates many issues of importance in regards to CT, but the CT experts in the AAPM feel that much of the message of this article may be misconstrued or misunderstood by the press or by the public who may not be experts in CT,” AAPM warned.
“Advancing technology has increasingly allowed imaging exams to replace more invasive techniques, but has also resulted in increased radiation exposure for Americans” ACR conceded.
ACR and AAPM faulted the study for equating the survivors of atomic bombings to patients undergoing CT scans.
“Most CT examinations are conducted under controlled conditions. They result in limited radiation exposure to a small portion of the body.
Atomic bomb survivors experienced instantaneous radiation exposure to the whole body,” ACR clarified. There were other differences. Brenner and Hall argued that survivors of atomic bombings who received doses similar to patients undergoing CT scans did suffer excess cancers.
AAPM wanted that patients should discuss with their physicians not only the radiation risks of the CT examination, but the risks of not having the diagnostic information that CT provides.
AAPM acknowledged that David Brenner and Eric Hall are esteemed scientists and respected experts in radiation risk and AAPM’s release is in no way meant to impeach or undermine their impressive credentials.
Radiologists, medical physicists and other radiology professionals have long recognised the need to implement CT practice conscientiously and maintain rigorous standards of practice (RSNA, 2007).
The NEJM study focussed attention on overuse of CT. One million children and 20 million adults in the U.S. undergo unnecessary CT scan procedures annually.
Some researchers believe that estimating the number of cancers at low radiation doses has no scientific basis. Others like Brenner and Hall disagree.
But all agree on some key points. CT scans are immensely useful in diagnosing diseases and trauma and in the guidance of interventional and therapeutic procedures.
Not risk free
However, these benefits are not without risks. The individual risk from X-rays associated with a CT scan is quite small, compared to the benefits of diagnosis in medically needed procedures.
It is important to keep the radiation doses during medical X-ray procedures as low as reasonably achievable.
Using CT for routine screening is unjustified (The Hindu, January, 5, 2006). Specialists do not recommend CT coronary angiography of asymptomatic patients for assessing occult coronary artery disease (The Hindu, November 2, 2006).
Physicians must make every effort to reduce radiation dose in CT procedures, especially for children (The Hindu, February 8, 2007). CT should not be used to screen persons for lung cancer (The Hindu, September 13, 2007).
Complex arguments
Specialist agencies across the board fear that the public may not understand complex scientific arguments.
Whether cancers soar with CT scans cannot be answered conclusively. Prudence demands caution in using this powerful medical imaging modality.
They tend to forget the fact that physicians face the challenge every day. The public will resolve the issues if specialists give all the inputs.
K.S. PARTHASARATHY
Former Secretary, AERB
( ksparth@yahoo.co.uk)
© Copyright 2000 - 2007 The Hindu
Thursday, November 01, 2007
Will cockroaches emerge as survivors of a nuclear war?
Will cockroaches survive a nuclear war? Cockroaches alleged radiation resistence may be a myth.The Discovery Channel plans to test the myth.We will know the result four moths from now when the Channel will air its programme.
K.S.Parthasarathy
Date:01/11/2007 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/thehindu/seta/2007/11/01/
stories/2007110151122300.htm Sci Tech
Will cockroaches emerge as survivors of a nuclear war?
Everyone expects cockroaches to survive a nuclear war. If cockroaches are close to the ‘epicentre,’ they will be incinerated because of the intense heat. The legend is built on the notion that cockroaches are radiation resistant.
Safe testing
Recently, ‘myth-busters’ of the Discovery Channel decided to settle the issue once and for all. Kari Byron, the TV hostess, revealed that the radiation resistance of cockroaches was in their list of myths from day one.
The TV team had to convince the Discovery Channel that they can do the testing safely (Tri-city Herald, October 19, 2007). Kari Byron noted that people are just scared when they hear radiation. She attributes this to the availability of “too many zombie movies”.
Routine use
It appears that the Channel does not know that industry routinely uses hundreds of irradiators all over the world safely to expose thousands of samples of food, medicine and surgical products to precisely known radiation doses. Irradiating a few hundred roaches is no big deal! Byron’s team will expose 200 ‘farm fresh’ cockroaches, bought from a scientific supply company.
Different doses
The staff of Pacific Northwest National Laboratory will assist the TV team to expose the cockroaches to different doses of gamma radiation using an irradiator located in the basement of a building at Hanford.
A group of 50 cockroaches, left unexposed will serve as control. The second group of 50 will receive 1000 rads. The third and fourth groups of 50 will have to suffer doses of 10,000 rads and 100,000 rads respectively. (Rad is a unit of radiation dose; a dose of 450 rads may kill 50 per cent of the persons exposed).
To add insult to injury, the experimenters will confine the beasts to small boxes to ensure uniform doses to each group! They plan to expose flour beetles and fruit-flies to similar doses.
The team faces some logistic problems. The exposed insects must reach San Francisco for close observation.
They cannot fly them as airlines will not let them in the passenger cabin; they cannot be placed in the baggage hold without wrecking the experiment (PhySorg.com, 2007).
Final destination
Grant Imahara, electronics and radio-control specialist of the TV Channel revealed that they have to maintain reasonable temperature and humidity so that the cockroaches will not go into shock. A ‘mythbusters’ employee will drive them to the final destination in San Francisco.
Tri-city Herald quoted Michelle Johnson, a technical group manager of the national lab as saying that the show presents good examples of scientific method and encourages developing a questioning attitude.
Gamma irradiation
“I have been told that cockroaches are more resistant to radiation and in a world nuclear war, only the cockroaches would survive. But I have not seen any publication that discusses it with any credibility… I have irradiated cockroaches and constructed killing curves for them using gamma irradiation… my opinion is that insects in general would be relatively resistant to radiation compared to non-insects…” Joseph G. Kunkel, Professor of Biology, at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, who maintains a cockroach home page, asserted.
The lives of insects revolve around their molting (periodical shedding and renewal of the outer skin) cycles. “During a molting cycle the cells of the insect divide usually only once.
“This is encoded in Dyar’s Rule, i.e. insects double their weight at each molt and thus their cells need to divide only once per molting cycle”, he wrote.
“Cells are most sensitive to radiation when they are dividing. Now if a typical cockroach molts at most once a week, its cells usually divide within a 48-hour period within that week...about 3/4 of the cockroaches would not have cells that are particularly radiation sensitive at any one time.
“If a killing radiation is endured by a cockroach and human population, then 3/4 of the cockroaches might survive while none of the humans might survive since our blood stem-cells and immune stem-cells are dividing all the time”, he clarified.
Four months from now, we may get an answer when Discovery Channel airs its show!
K.S. PARTHASARATHY
Former Secretary, AERB
ksparth@yahoo.co.uk
© Copyright 2000 - 2007 The Hindu
K.S.Parthasarathy
Date:01/11/2007 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/thehindu/seta/2007/11/01/
stories/2007110151122300.htm Sci Tech
Will cockroaches emerge as survivors of a nuclear war?
Everyone expects cockroaches to survive a nuclear war. If cockroaches are close to the ‘epicentre,’ they will be incinerated because of the intense heat. The legend is built on the notion that cockroaches are radiation resistant.
Safe testing
Recently, ‘myth-busters’ of the Discovery Channel decided to settle the issue once and for all. Kari Byron, the TV hostess, revealed that the radiation resistance of cockroaches was in their list of myths from day one.
The TV team had to convince the Discovery Channel that they can do the testing safely (Tri-city Herald, October 19, 2007). Kari Byron noted that people are just scared when they hear radiation. She attributes this to the availability of “too many zombie movies”.
Routine use
It appears that the Channel does not know that industry routinely uses hundreds of irradiators all over the world safely to expose thousands of samples of food, medicine and surgical products to precisely known radiation doses. Irradiating a few hundred roaches is no big deal! Byron’s team will expose 200 ‘farm fresh’ cockroaches, bought from a scientific supply company.
Different doses
The staff of Pacific Northwest National Laboratory will assist the TV team to expose the cockroaches to different doses of gamma radiation using an irradiator located in the basement of a building at Hanford.
A group of 50 cockroaches, left unexposed will serve as control. The second group of 50 will receive 1000 rads. The third and fourth groups of 50 will have to suffer doses of 10,000 rads and 100,000 rads respectively. (Rad is a unit of radiation dose; a dose of 450 rads may kill 50 per cent of the persons exposed).
To add insult to injury, the experimenters will confine the beasts to small boxes to ensure uniform doses to each group! They plan to expose flour beetles and fruit-flies to similar doses.
The team faces some logistic problems. The exposed insects must reach San Francisco for close observation.
They cannot fly them as airlines will not let them in the passenger cabin; they cannot be placed in the baggage hold without wrecking the experiment (PhySorg.com, 2007).
Final destination
Grant Imahara, electronics and radio-control specialist of the TV Channel revealed that they have to maintain reasonable temperature and humidity so that the cockroaches will not go into shock. A ‘mythbusters’ employee will drive them to the final destination in San Francisco.
Tri-city Herald quoted Michelle Johnson, a technical group manager of the national lab as saying that the show presents good examples of scientific method and encourages developing a questioning attitude.
Gamma irradiation
“I have been told that cockroaches are more resistant to radiation and in a world nuclear war, only the cockroaches would survive. But I have not seen any publication that discusses it with any credibility… I have irradiated cockroaches and constructed killing curves for them using gamma irradiation… my opinion is that insects in general would be relatively resistant to radiation compared to non-insects…” Joseph G. Kunkel, Professor of Biology, at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, who maintains a cockroach home page, asserted.
The lives of insects revolve around their molting (periodical shedding and renewal of the outer skin) cycles. “During a molting cycle the cells of the insect divide usually only once.
“This is encoded in Dyar’s Rule, i.e. insects double their weight at each molt and thus their cells need to divide only once per molting cycle”, he wrote.
“Cells are most sensitive to radiation when they are dividing. Now if a typical cockroach molts at most once a week, its cells usually divide within a 48-hour period within that week...about 3/4 of the cockroaches would not have cells that are particularly radiation sensitive at any one time.
“If a killing radiation is endured by a cockroach and human population, then 3/4 of the cockroaches might survive while none of the humans might survive since our blood stem-cells and immune stem-cells are dividing all the time”, he clarified.
Four months from now, we may get an answer when Discovery Channel airs its show!
K.S. PARTHASARATHY
Former Secretary, AERB
ksparth@yahoo.co.uk
© Copyright 2000 - 2007 The Hindu
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Behaviour of birds and worms at Chernobyl
Date:18/10/2007 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/thehindu/seta/2007/10/18/stories/
2007101850081500.htm
________________________________________
Sci Tech
Behaviour of birds and worms at Chernobyl
________________________________________
Lot of variation among species and within species
Strong correlation between internal dose, radiation level
________________________________________
Recent studies of birds at Chernobyl revealed some strange behaviour of certain species. Anders Moller at Pierre and Marie University in Paris and Tim Mousseau at the University of South Carolina found that the bird species, pied flycatcher and the great tit (Parus major), generally avoided nesting boxes kept at high levels of background radiation. Pied flycatcher exhibited stronger effect. Radiation levels at some nest sites were as much as 2,000 times the natural levels elsewhere in the world (New Scientist, March, 28, 2007).
Nest site choice
“Inter specific differences in effects of radiation on nest-site choice suggest that species respond in a species-specific manner to radiation,” they claimed (Proc. Roy.Soc. Biology, March 27, 2007).
Their claim may not be valid as they did not consider internal doses which were substantial. “We cannot agree more that internal dose is most important. We have…measured dose rate of over 300 birds around Chernobyl. There is a very strong correlation between internal dose and radiation level at the site of capture,” the authors responded. Ukrainian scientists coordinated the study of internal body burden estimates.
“… the preliminary results suggest considerable variation among species and individuals within species, even those living in the same general area. We hope to fully explore these data once our colleagues have finished with the primary publication,” Dr Mousseau clarified.
Once Time magazine noted that yellow legged mud-dauber wasps at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory use mud containing radioactivity to build their nests whereas pipe-organ mud-daubers use only non-radioactive mud, though the same source of nest materials was available to both ( http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,897250,00.html).
Dr Mousseu had seen mud-dauber tubes at the Savannah River site. “I will investigate the possibility of measuring activity in the mud,” he promised in an e-mail message. He noted that barn swallows, the bird species studied extensively at Chernobyl also build their nest in the area!
Three species studied
Certain species of worms in the lakes in Chernobyl behaved strangely! Scientists studied three species contaminated by radioactivity from the Chernobyl accident; greater proportions of two species of worms started seeking partners for sex, switching from asexual to sexual reproduction. Ukrainian scientists believe that they did it to increase their chance of survival (EurekAlert, April 9, 2003).
The third species showed double the rate for asexual reproduction in the polluted lake (Journal of Env. Radioactivity, 2003).
Background radiation in certain areas of Kerala and Tamil Nadu is above normal (far too less than that in Chernobyl).
I asked Dr Mousseau whether the study of insects and other invertebrates in such high background radiation areas (HBRA) is of any interest.
“It would seem to me that this region would likely reveal some very interesting adaptations to radiation that might not have had time to evolve in other regions”, he conceded. “…it would be important to focus on a few key species that occur in this area and examine survival and reproduction with control sites.
Similarly, it would be valuable to examine the community of organisms, especially insects, to determine if species composition changes in a predictable way.
Either way, I suspect that this region would be an excellent target for further investigation and my suspicion is that one would be very likely to generate many exciting discoveries of organismal responses to this environmental effect”, he asserted.
No scientific basis
Learned national academies and international agencies should support a dedicated research project to study the flora and fauna in the HBRA.
Radiation biologists, geneticists, biotechnologists and radiation physicists must carry it out.
The International Commission on Radiological Protection has realised that its old concept that if man is protected, other organisms will be protected has no scientific basis.
K. S. PARTHASARATHY
FORMER SECRETARY, AERB
( ksparth@yahoo.co.uk)
© Copyright 2000 - 2007 The Hindu
Sunday, October 07, 2007
Prettiest birds the hardest hit in Chernobyl
Date:04/10/2007 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/thehindu/seta/
2007/10/04/stories/2007100450091500.htm
________________________________________
Sci Tech
Prettiest birds the hardest hit at Chernobyl
Birds with bright, colourful plumage registered the strongest decline
________________________________________
Radiation produces free radicals which damage DNA and other molecules permanently
Four groups of birds which suffered most had high expenditure of antioxidants
________________________________________
At 01:23 hrs on 26 April 1986, the severest nuclear accident occurred at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Station in Ukraine. Radioactive materials from the stricken reactor got released over the next ten days. Large areas got heavily contaminated. Initially, vast tracts of pine forests close to the site perished. Over the next few years, the lands recovered their green cover.
Recent reports claimed that animals like wild boar, wolves and moose had flourished in the 40 mile diameter exclusion zone (The New York Times, August 28, 2007).
‘Defying predictions’
“Contrary to the myths and imagery, Chernobyl’s land had become a unique, new ecosystem. Defying the gloomiest predictions, it had come back to life as Europe’s largest nature sanctuary, teeming with wildlife”. Mary Mycio who visited Chernobyl in 1996 described “the lands extraordinary resurrection” in ‘Wormwood Forest, A Natural History of Chernobyl.’
However, Dr. A.P. Moller and Dr T.A. Mousseau who carried out scientific studies of birds noted that population of the prettiest birds with bright, colourful plumage registered the strongest decline with radiation (Journal of Applied Eco logy, July 11, 2007). Population density of species of birds with long distance migration and dispersal and large eggs also declined with radiation level.
“Species richness, abundance and population density of breeding birds decreased with increasing levels of radiation even after controlling statistically for the effects of potentially confounding factors such as soil type, habitat, and height of vegetation” the researchers observed (Biology letters, August 14, 2007).
The researchers used point count census of 57 species of birds at 254 locations in the forests around Chernobyl to establish the relationship between abundance of birds and radiation levels.
Scavengers
Radiation produces free radicals which damage DNA and other molecules in living cells permanently. Antioxidants are free radical scavengers. They protect tissues against radiation damage.
Moller and Mousseau suggested that if antioxidants are a limited resource in the body, individuals with a high expenditure of antioxidants may suffer most from radiation. Pretty birds spent large amounts of carotenoids (these are antioxidants) in their colourful plumes, losing them irrecoverably.
Physical activity
Birds that migrate over large distances spent large amounts of antioxidants during their extreme physical activity. Birds which lay large eggs have lower levels of antioxidants as they deposit most of it in their eggs.
The researchers argued that the four groups of birds which suffered most had high expenditure of antioxidants (Journal of applied Ecology, 2007).
Important implications
“While the present study has implications for the study of animals living in radioactively contaminated areas such as Chernobyl… it may also have important implications for animals elsewhere. There is large variation in natural levels of radioactivity as a result of variation in abundance of radioactive isotopes…There are no studies of the biological consequences of such variations in natural levels of radioactivity, but we suggest that some of the consequences can be predicted from the present study”, the authors claimed.
The researchers expected that individuals of bird species with carotenoid-based plumage to have paler plumage colour in Chernobyl than individuals from control sites.
Similarly, we may expect that ladybird which has the highest number of carotenoids among insects may have paler hues in the high natural background radiation areas (HBRA) of Kerala. The radiation levels in HBRA are relatively low compared to those in Chernobyl.
Lesser range
But ladybirds in HBRA may get exposed to significant radiation doses as they have less range and may be considered to be relatively immobile compared to birds!
Any insect lover can test the hypothesis by carrying out a survey in HBRA for a few days!
Ladybirds may be radiation resistant. Scientists sent C.elgans, a type of round worm, which has been genetically mapped, in the stricken shuttle Columbia to study space radiation effects.
They survived the disaster. Cousins of these survivors may be present in HBRA!
K.S. PARTHASARATHY
Former Secretary, AERB ( ksparth@yahoo.co.uk)
© Copyright 2000 - 2007 The Hindu
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Fungi that live off radiation at Chernobyl
Fungi that live off radiation at Chernobyl
It was shown how ionising radiation encourages growth of melanised fungi
Like chlorophyll, melanin uses a part of the electromagnetic spectrum to benefit the fungi
The phenomenon may be useful to astronauts, who may harvest the fungi as a food source
Occasionally, the lowliest of the lowly beings get global attention by being at the most unexpected places.
This was what happened to some microorganisms including Cladosporium sphaerospermum (CS). This tongue-twisting name belongs to a type of humble fungus.
Five years ago, Dr. Arturo Casadevall, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, U.S., read in the web that a robot sent into the still highly radioactive damaged reactor at the Chernobyl nuclear power station, returned with samples of black fungi, which were growing on the reactor’s walls. (PhysOrg.com, May 23, 2007).
Habits revealed
It appeared that these fungi were feeding on radiation. They can no longer keep their radiation feasting habits away from the prying eyes of researchers.
These fungi contain melanin, a high molecular weight pigment, the same colouring agent in our skin.
Until now, the biological role of melanin has been a mystery (PHYSICS.ORG, 2007). In a 13-page paper in the Public Library of Science Journal (PLoS ONE, May 23, 2007) Dr Casadevall and other researchers explained the physico-chemical tests and in vivo experiments with three genetically diverse fungi and four measures of cell growth; they demonstrated lucidly how ionising radiation brings about changes in melanin and encourages the growth of melanised fungi.
An elegant and simple hypothesis may explain the behaviour of melanised fungi.
“Just as the pigment chlorophyll converts sunlight into chemical energy that allows green plants to live and grow, our research suggests that melanin uses a different part of the electromagnetic spectrum to benefit the fungi containing it”, Dr Ekaterina Dadachova, one of the co-authors of the paper, explained.
Providing energy
Dr Casadevall admitted that it is pure speculation but not outside the realm of possibility that melanin could be providing energy to skin cells. They grew some melanised fungi and others without the pigment and exposed them to gamma radiation.
The dark fungi grew better when irradiated (The New Zealand Herald May 27, 2007).
Certain types of fungi grew significantly faster when scientists exposed them to ionising radiation levels nearly 500 times more than the background; they gained more dry weight biomass.
People despise fungi because they assume that the main job of fungi is to decompose matter into other chemicals!
The melanin-containing microorganisms are often the dominating species in certain extreme environments (PLoS ONE 2007) such as the abandoned contaminated regions at Unit 4, the stricken reactor at Chernobyl.
Living happily
They live happily in soil contaminated with radionuclides, at high altitudes and in hostile Arctic and Antarctic regions!
There are indications that melanins are ancient pigments that have probably been selected as they enhance the survival of melanised fungi in diverse environments and, perhaps incidentally in many hosts (PLoS ONE, 2007).
Casadevall and his co-workers believe that despite the high prevalence of melanotic microorganisms in radioactive environments, it is unlikely that they synthesise melanin for the purposes of protection (shielding) from ionising radiation.
They noted that in the high altitude regions inhabited by melanotic fungi, the background radiation levels are about 500-1,000 times higher than at sea level.
Since most fungi, whether melanised or not, can withstand 17,000 times more energy, the authors consider that there is apparently no need for melanin to remain as a radio-protective agent.
But biological pigments play a major role in photosynthesis; they convert light energy to chemical energy.
Properties changed
Since melanin can absorb visible and UV light of all wavelengths, the authors suggested that exposure to ionising radiation would change the properties of melanin and affect the growth of melanized microorganisms.
They could convincingly demonstrate their expectations. The capability of fungi to live off radiation and make biomass may be useful to astronauts, who may be able to harvest the fungi as a food source.
The fungi can produce food by using enhanced levels of ionising radiation present in outer space.
Nature’s capriciousness
Nature is very capricious in revealing its resourcefulness. Lowly beings such as fungi can teach enterprising humanity a lesson or two in harnessing energy while surviving in unendurable environments.
K.S. PARTHASARATHY
Former Secretary, AERB
ksparth@yahoo.co.uk
© Copyright 2000 - 2007 The Hindu
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Routine use of CT to screen for lung cancer risky
Routine use of CT to screen for lung cancer risky
Routine use of this unique tool on symptomless individuals is potentially hazardous
Photo: K.R. Deepak
Need for caution: Population based screening for lung cancer is not recommended and may, ultimately put the patient at risk for further complications. — .
The American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) oppose the use of low dose computed tomography (CT) for general screening of lung cancer (EurekAlert, September 10).One hundred multi-disciplinary panel members developed and published the new evidence-based guidelines in a supplement to the September issue of CHEST, ACCP’s peer reviewed journal.
Mortality unaffected
Dr. W. Michael Alberts, Chief Medical Officer, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Florida, cautioned that even in high risk populations, currently available research data do not show that lung cancer screening alters mortality outcomes.
“Population [based] screening for lung cancer is not recommended and may, ultimately, put the patient at risk for further complications,” said Dr.Gene L. Colice, Director, Pulmonary, Critical Care and Respiratory Services, Washington Hospital Center, Washington DC and vice chairman of the ACCP lung cancer guidelines.
He clarified that during screening, physicians may commonly find nodules; however, to determine whether they are cancerous or not requires fairly invasive and extensive additional testing. The patient may have to face needless risk, both physically and psychologically.
‘Diagnosis and Management of Lung Cancer: ACCP Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (2nd Edition)’ contains 260 of the most comprehensive recommendations related to lung cancer prevention, screening, diagnosis, staging, and medical and surgical treatments. Some of these apply to computed tomography screening.
“There is little evidence to show that lung cancer screening impacts mortality in patients, including those who are considered at high risk for the disease” an ACCP press release asserted.
CT screening of symptom-free individuals is controversial. Peter B. Bach and his co-workers analysed lung cancers in 3,246 asymptomatic current or former smokers screened for lung cancer from two academic centres in the U.S. and one in Italy and found that screening for lung cancer with low dose CT may increase the rate of lung cancer diagnosis and treatment, but may not meaningfully reduce the risk of advanced lung cancer or deaths from lung cancer (JAMA, March, 7).
They argued that until more conclusive data are available, asymptomatic individuals should not be screened outside clinical research studies that have a reasonable likelihood of further clarifying the potential benefits and risks.
Conclusions opposed
These results contradict the conclusions of the International Early Action Lung Cancer Programme, which claimed that CT screening of high risk individuals could prevent 80 per cent of lung cancer deaths (New England Journal of Medicine, 2006).
After reviewing these two papers, Drs William C. Black and John A. Baron concluded thus: “Although expensive and time consuming, rigorous trials for cancer screening are far more cost-effective than what might be the alternative — widespread adoption of costly screening interventions that cause more harm than good” (JAMA, March, 7, 2007).
The unambiguous ACCP guidelines must settle the issue. The ACCP Thoracic Oncology NetWork, the Health and Science Policy Committee, the Board of Regents, and external reviewers from the journal CHEST reviewed and approved these guidelines.
The American Association for Bronchology, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American College of Surgeons Oncology Group, American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology, Asian Pacific Society of Respirology, Oncology Nurses Society, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, and the World Association of Bronchology also endorsed them.
Over 2,200 CT scan units are used in India. These are beneficial tools only in clinically indicated diagnostic tests.
Each CT scan exposes patients to radiation doses equal to a few hundreds of chest x-ray examinations. Routine use of this unique tool on symptomless individuals is potentially hazardous.
Panel of specialists
Professional associations in India must develop robust guidelines. In the absence of such efforts, the Health Ministry must urgently set up a panel of specialists with representatives from Indian Council of Medical Research, the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board and professional associations to review the ACCP recommendations and other similar guidelines.
The panel may be asked to examine the applicability of these guidelines in the Indian context and make appropriate recommendations.
K.S. PARTHASARATHY
Former Secretary, AERB
( ksparth@yahoo.co.uk)
© Copyright 2000 - 2006 The Hindu
Routine use of this unique tool on symptomless individuals is potentially hazardous
Photo: K.R. Deepak
Need for caution: Population based screening for lung cancer is not recommended and may, ultimately put the patient at risk for further complications. — .
The American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) oppose the use of low dose computed tomography (CT) for general screening of lung cancer (EurekAlert, September 10).One hundred multi-disciplinary panel members developed and published the new evidence-based guidelines in a supplement to the September issue of CHEST, ACCP’s peer reviewed journal.
Mortality unaffected
Dr. W. Michael Alberts, Chief Medical Officer, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Florida, cautioned that even in high risk populations, currently available research data do not show that lung cancer screening alters mortality outcomes.
“Population [based] screening for lung cancer is not recommended and may, ultimately, put the patient at risk for further complications,” said Dr.Gene L. Colice, Director, Pulmonary, Critical Care and Respiratory Services, Washington Hospital Center, Washington DC and vice chairman of the ACCP lung cancer guidelines.
He clarified that during screening, physicians may commonly find nodules; however, to determine whether they are cancerous or not requires fairly invasive and extensive additional testing. The patient may have to face needless risk, both physically and psychologically.
‘Diagnosis and Management of Lung Cancer: ACCP Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (2nd Edition)’ contains 260 of the most comprehensive recommendations related to lung cancer prevention, screening, diagnosis, staging, and medical and surgical treatments. Some of these apply to computed tomography screening.
“There is little evidence to show that lung cancer screening impacts mortality in patients, including those who are considered at high risk for the disease” an ACCP press release asserted.
CT screening of symptom-free individuals is controversial. Peter B. Bach and his co-workers analysed lung cancers in 3,246 asymptomatic current or former smokers screened for lung cancer from two academic centres in the U.S. and one in Italy and found that screening for lung cancer with low dose CT may increase the rate of lung cancer diagnosis and treatment, but may not meaningfully reduce the risk of advanced lung cancer or deaths from lung cancer (JAMA, March, 7).
They argued that until more conclusive data are available, asymptomatic individuals should not be screened outside clinical research studies that have a reasonable likelihood of further clarifying the potential benefits and risks.
Conclusions opposed
These results contradict the conclusions of the International Early Action Lung Cancer Programme, which claimed that CT screening of high risk individuals could prevent 80 per cent of lung cancer deaths (New England Journal of Medicine, 2006).
After reviewing these two papers, Drs William C. Black and John A. Baron concluded thus: “Although expensive and time consuming, rigorous trials for cancer screening are far more cost-effective than what might be the alternative — widespread adoption of costly screening interventions that cause more harm than good” (JAMA, March, 7, 2007).
The unambiguous ACCP guidelines must settle the issue. The ACCP Thoracic Oncology NetWork, the Health and Science Policy Committee, the Board of Regents, and external reviewers from the journal CHEST reviewed and approved these guidelines.
The American Association for Bronchology, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American College of Surgeons Oncology Group, American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology, Asian Pacific Society of Respirology, Oncology Nurses Society, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, and the World Association of Bronchology also endorsed them.
Over 2,200 CT scan units are used in India. These are beneficial tools only in clinically indicated diagnostic tests.
Each CT scan exposes patients to radiation doses equal to a few hundreds of chest x-ray examinations. Routine use of this unique tool on symptomless individuals is potentially hazardous.
Panel of specialists
Professional associations in India must develop robust guidelines. In the absence of such efforts, the Health Ministry must urgently set up a panel of specialists with representatives from Indian Council of Medical Research, the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board and professional associations to review the ACCP recommendations and other similar guidelines.
The panel may be asked to examine the applicability of these guidelines in the Indian context and make appropriate recommendations.
K.S. PARTHASARATHY
Former Secretary, AERB
( ksparth@yahoo.co.uk)
© Copyright 2000 - 2006 The Hindu
Thursday, September 06, 2007
Safety factors considered in nuclear powerplant location
Safety factors considered in nuclear power plant location
A detailed analysis revealed that a postulated fault at Kalpakkam did not exist
The AERB Code of Practice on Safety in Nuclear Power Plant Siting prescribes 48 criteria
The doses to public due to radioactive releases during normal operation are within AERB limits
While addressing a public meeting organised by the Rotary club in a metro city, one of the speakers asked the audience whether they prefer to have a cattle farm or a nuclear power plant in their backyard.
The voice vote clearly favoured a cattle farm! The reasons for the “Not In My Backyard (NIMBY) view” are not far to seek. Public distrusts nuclear industry.
Previous accidents
The accidents at the nuclear power station at Three Mile Island in the U.S. in 1979 and that at the Chernobyl nuclear power Station in Ukraine in the former Soviet Union in 1986 did not help.
The discerning public may blame the nuclear establishment, if the NIMBY attitude continues. NIMBY will become In My Backyard (IMBY), if the public realises the steps taken to ensure safety in nuclear power plants.
These include the choice of the right site; construction of reactors of proven technology; institution of sound quality assurance measures; provision of diverse and redundant reactor control and protection systems of high reliability; defence-in-depth philosophy; proven operating procedures by qualified and trained staff; continuous review and feedback of operating experience; well rehearsed emergency prepared plans among others.
The AERB (Atomic Energy Regulatory Board) Code of Practice on Safety in Nuclear Power Plant Siting prescribes 48 criteria; thirty of them are mandatory; seven are desirable. Eleven criteria belong to the rejection category.
The AERB reviews the effect of natural events such as earthquakes, winds, floods, tides, slope instability, etc and man-induced events such as air-crash, oil slick, blasting, mining etc. on the plant.
Outright rejection
A few seismic criteria prescribe outright rejection of certain sites. Other factors include prescribed grade elevation above tide level, location of airfields, military installations storing ammunition, architectural or historical monuments and pilgrimage or tourist centres. Sites will be acceptable only if they satisfy AERB Codal requirements.
The desirable parameters specified by AERB Code include distance from the site to the facilities, if any, handling/storing inflammable, toxic, corrosive or explosive material and any mining activities, the terrain features and the population density within specified distances.
A site selection committee of specialists appointed by the Central Government chooses the sites for locating nuclear power plants from the sites proposed by the State Governments.
AERB issues siting clearances valid for a specific period after reviewing the recommendations of its Site Evaluation Committee (SEC) and a senior level Advisory Committee for Project Safety Review (ACPSR).
Recently, the SEC recommended installation and operation of a five-station micro earthquake monitoring network at the Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor (PFBR). It is operational now. AERB recommended a detailed analysis and field check to ascertain the status of a postulated fault at Kalpakkam.
Coastline stable
The study revealed that the fault does not exist. On the recommendation of SEC, National Institute of Oceanography (NIO) studied the shore line stability at Kalpakkam. NIO found that the coastline was stable. A detailed study for evaluation of tsunami hazard in Kalpakkam area is in progress.
Nuclear power reactors produce large amounts of radioactivity during their operation.
Design features
Design features and safety measures ensure that the radiation doses to workers are well within the limits prescribed by the AERB. AERB may argue that there is scope for reduction.
The doses to public due to radioactive releases during normal operation are too low to be measured directly and are within AERB limits.
They are within the variations of the natural background radiation present everywhere even in the absence of nuclear power plants. The safety performance of Indian reactors is reassuring.
Recent survey
A recent survey in the U.S. organised by the Nuclear Energy Institute, a nuclear advocacy group, among 1,100 adults, revealed that 71 per cent would be willing to see a new reactor near them (World Nuclear News, August 21), a probab le response in France, as it generates 78 per cent of its electricity from nuclear reactors.
The French are very proud of their nuclear programme. If the recent awareness on nuclear issues is an indication, NIMBY attitude among the Indian public will hopefully turn into IMBY during the next few years!
K.S.PARTHASARATHY
Former Secretary, AERB
ksparth@yahoo.co.uk
© Copyright 2000 - 2006 The Hindu
Friday, August 24, 2007
Spin offs from radiation studies
Date:09/08/2007 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/thehindu/seta/2007/08/09/stories/2007080950151500.htm Sci Tech
Spin-offs from radiation studies
Hiroshima and Nagasaki became the targets of atomic bombings on 6th and 9th August 1945 respectively. On November 18, 1946, the U.S. President Harry Truman authorised the National Research Council to set up an organisation “to undertake a long range, continuing study of the biological and medical effects of atomic bomb on man.”
The Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission (ABCC), the organisation established for the purpose and its predecessor, Radiation Effects Research Foundation (RERF), carried out and is carrying out priceless research on biomedical effects of radiation from June 1947 to date.
Studies pioneered by RERF at Hiroshima are making their impact on epidemiology, molecular and cellular biology, genetics, immunology and a range of other health sciences. From the 280,000 survivors in the two cities, the RERF researchers established fixed cohorts or sub-cohorts to provide epidemiological and clinical data on the health status and mortality of survivors and their children.
RERF researchers found that grip strength is a simple but useful measure to predict subsequent health of Japanese adults. Dr Hideo Sasaki, an expert panel member of RERF and other researchers followed up for 25 years, the survival status of 5,000 Adult Health Study participants (ages ranged from 35 to 74 years) who underwent grip strength testing between 1970 and 1972.
Low mortality
Total disease mortality was low among those with high grip strength. From 2002, RERF is focussing on the study of life-style related diseases such as hypertension, diabetes mellitus, myocardial infarction, stroke etc., that are not observable at birth but start to appear after middle age. On February 28 this year, RERF stated thus: “when multi-factorial disease in children were combined, no evidence suggesting increased risk associated with parental radiation exposure was observed.” In males, the study revealed that the prevalence rate of multi-factorial diseases decreased when paternal dose increased. “… Careful interpretation of this finding is necessary” RERF cautioned (RERF, February 2007)
Cancer incidence
Since 1950, RERF followed up the mortality of about 120,000 members of the Life Span Study cohort and carried out the cancer incidence studies since 1958.
Radiation-associated cancer risk increased significantly for oral cavity, stomach, colon, liver, lung, skin, breast, ovary, bladder system and thyroid. Rectum, gall bladder, pancreas, prostate or kidney did not indicate statistically significant increase in cancer risk. For the first time, the researchers found that the risk of cancer of the oesophagus was significant and radiation exposure at ages less than 20 years might increase the risk of uterus cancer. (Radiation Research, Ju ly 2007).
Physicians appointed by the Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission, examined 76,626 infants conceived and born in Hiroshima and Nagasaki over a period of six years starting from 1948.
Preliminary study did not reveal any discernible birth defect with radiation exposure. Follow up study on mortality, serum proteins and chromosome abnormalities did not reveal any radiation effect.
RERF continues with the study of a group of 3,600 persons through their middle and old age. Atomic bombing exposed them to radiation as they were then in their mothers’ wombs. One of the inputs to prescribe radiological protection standards emerged from the unparalleled epidemiological study at Hiroshima. Radiation protection specialists review the results periodically. They confirmed the robustness of these standards.
K.S. PARTHASARATHY
FORMER SECRETARY, AERB
K
© Copyright 2000 - 2006 The Hindu
Spin-offs from radiation studies
Hiroshima and Nagasaki became the targets of atomic bombings on 6th and 9th August 1945 respectively. On November 18, 1946, the U.S. President Harry Truman authorised the National Research Council to set up an organisation “to undertake a long range, continuing study of the biological and medical effects of atomic bomb on man.”
The Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission (ABCC), the organisation established for the purpose and its predecessor, Radiation Effects Research Foundation (RERF), carried out and is carrying out priceless research on biomedical effects of radiation from June 1947 to date.
Studies pioneered by RERF at Hiroshima are making their impact on epidemiology, molecular and cellular biology, genetics, immunology and a range of other health sciences. From the 280,000 survivors in the two cities, the RERF researchers established fixed cohorts or sub-cohorts to provide epidemiological and clinical data on the health status and mortality of survivors and their children.
RERF researchers found that grip strength is a simple but useful measure to predict subsequent health of Japanese adults. Dr Hideo Sasaki, an expert panel member of RERF and other researchers followed up for 25 years, the survival status of 5,000 Adult Health Study participants (ages ranged from 35 to 74 years) who underwent grip strength testing between 1970 and 1972.
Low mortality
Total disease mortality was low among those with high grip strength. From 2002, RERF is focussing on the study of life-style related diseases such as hypertension, diabetes mellitus, myocardial infarction, stroke etc., that are not observable at birth but start to appear after middle age. On February 28 this year, RERF stated thus: “when multi-factorial disease in children were combined, no evidence suggesting increased risk associated with parental radiation exposure was observed.” In males, the study revealed that the prevalence rate of multi-factorial diseases decreased when paternal dose increased. “… Careful interpretation of this finding is necessary” RERF cautioned (RERF, February 2007)
Cancer incidence
Since 1950, RERF followed up the mortality of about 120,000 members of the Life Span Study cohort and carried out the cancer incidence studies since 1958.
Radiation-associated cancer risk increased significantly for oral cavity, stomach, colon, liver, lung, skin, breast, ovary, bladder system and thyroid. Rectum, gall bladder, pancreas, prostate or kidney did not indicate statistically significant increase in cancer risk. For the first time, the researchers found that the risk of cancer of the oesophagus was significant and radiation exposure at ages less than 20 years might increase the risk of uterus cancer. (Radiation Research, Ju ly 2007).
Physicians appointed by the Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission, examined 76,626 infants conceived and born in Hiroshima and Nagasaki over a period of six years starting from 1948.
Preliminary study did not reveal any discernible birth defect with radiation exposure. Follow up study on mortality, serum proteins and chromosome abnormalities did not reveal any radiation effect.
RERF continues with the study of a group of 3,600 persons through their middle and old age. Atomic bombing exposed them to radiation as they were then in their mothers’ wombs. One of the inputs to prescribe radiological protection standards emerged from the unparalleled epidemiological study at Hiroshima. Radiation protection specialists review the results periodically. They confirmed the robustness of these standards.
K.S. PARTHASARATHY
FORMER SECRETARY, AERB
K
© Copyright 2000 - 2006 The Hindu
Saturday, July 28, 2007
Are Indian nuclear power plants earthquake resistant?
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
/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
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
Saturday, June 23, 2007
An open letter to the people of Meghalaya
THE SHILLONG TIMES
June, 12, 2007
An open letter to the people of Meghalaya
By Dr K.S.Parthasarathy*
Media reports say that your views are strongly polarized in favour of and against uranium mining in Domiasiat. This is a healthy development, as it will create the much-needed awareness among the public on all mining related issues. Before taking a stand, you must get all facts and analyze them dispassionately.
The Uranium Corporation of India, which claims to be a "company with a mission", should travel an extra mile not to "educate" you but to "inform" the public honestly, frankly and openly. They have been in business since 1967.
A few well-motivated NGOs get away with deliberate propaganda mixing myths and realities. A popular journalist once informed an unsuspecting audience that Uranium-238 is radioactive and has a half-life of 4500 million years, a true statement. He did not tell that because of the long half-life, the emission from Uranium is very feeble.
They exaggerate omissions and commissions cleverly to manipulate the minds of innocent populations.
Most of the propaganda is about the conditions in Jaduguda. Jharkhand Organisation against Radiation (JOAR), an NGO makes the startling and frivolous claim that many women in Chattikocha village in Jauduguda have change in their menstrual cycle!
The NGO alleged that many people in Jaduguda suffer from weakness, depression etc; 1/3rd of women are unable to conceive; children are born with one eye, disfigured face, twisted legs etc. Health effects of radiation have been the subject of detailed study for the past several decades. The United Nations Scientific Committee of the Effects of Atomic Radiation publishes periodic reports on it. None of these ever recorded that radiation can cause such symptoms
.Medical specialists studied alleged health effects in Jaduguda and concluded that the weird images of diseases and vague symptoms have nothing to do with radiation.
UCIL gives a commitment that they will carry out their mining activity safely, The Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, the competent authority to enforce radiation safety will ensure that they do so.
However, there were violations; every TV channel, which went to Jaduguda, recorded them; Villagers occasionally stray into the tailing ponds. (Tailing ponds contain radioactive waste left after the removal of uranium.) The NGOs claim that there is no warning or signpost about the presence of radioactive waste. However, those villagers who stray into the pond ignore the signboards. The Atomic Energy Regulatory Board also had made an issue of it. Now UCIL has fenced the ponds off and placed the site under the care of Central Industrial Security Force.
TV journalists who saw villagers on the tailings believed that they had got a scoop. Though walking over the tailings is a violation, the consequences of the violations are not significant. The radiation levels over the tailings are so low that a person has to stand over it for four hours a day for 365 days to get a radiation dose somewhere near the dose limit to members of the public. However, the practice is unacceptable.
Since we decided to increase nuclear power generation, we must explore and mine the indigenous resources of uranium aggressively by adopting safe practices and technology. We must not allow a few NGOs to scare away the public by exaggerating the perceived or imaginary risks of radiation. UCIL must enlighten the discerning sections of the public to exorcise the atomic ghosts created by overzealous nuclear critics.
[*The Author is former Secretary, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board]
June, 12, 2007
An open letter to the people of Meghalaya
By Dr K.S.Parthasarathy*
Media reports say that your views are strongly polarized in favour of and against uranium mining in Domiasiat. This is a healthy development, as it will create the much-needed awareness among the public on all mining related issues. Before taking a stand, you must get all facts and analyze them dispassionately.
The Uranium Corporation of India, which claims to be a "company with a mission", should travel an extra mile not to "educate" you but to "inform" the public honestly, frankly and openly. They have been in business since 1967.
A few well-motivated NGOs get away with deliberate propaganda mixing myths and realities. A popular journalist once informed an unsuspecting audience that Uranium-238 is radioactive and has a half-life of 4500 million years, a true statement. He did not tell that because of the long half-life, the emission from Uranium is very feeble.
They exaggerate omissions and commissions cleverly to manipulate the minds of innocent populations.
Most of the propaganda is about the conditions in Jaduguda. Jharkhand Organisation against Radiation (JOAR), an NGO makes the startling and frivolous claim that many women in Chattikocha village in Jauduguda have change in their menstrual cycle!
The NGO alleged that many people in Jaduguda suffer from weakness, depression etc; 1/3rd of women are unable to conceive; children are born with one eye, disfigured face, twisted legs etc. Health effects of radiation have been the subject of detailed study for the past several decades. The United Nations Scientific Committee of the Effects of Atomic Radiation publishes periodic reports on it. None of these ever recorded that radiation can cause such symptoms
.Medical specialists studied alleged health effects in Jaduguda and concluded that the weird images of diseases and vague symptoms have nothing to do with radiation.
UCIL gives a commitment that they will carry out their mining activity safely, The Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, the competent authority to enforce radiation safety will ensure that they do so.
However, there were violations; every TV channel, which went to Jaduguda, recorded them; Villagers occasionally stray into the tailing ponds. (Tailing ponds contain radioactive waste left after the removal of uranium.) The NGOs claim that there is no warning or signpost about the presence of radioactive waste. However, those villagers who stray into the pond ignore the signboards. The Atomic Energy Regulatory Board also had made an issue of it. Now UCIL has fenced the ponds off and placed the site under the care of Central Industrial Security Force.
TV journalists who saw villagers on the tailings believed that they had got a scoop. Though walking over the tailings is a violation, the consequences of the violations are not significant. The radiation levels over the tailings are so low that a person has to stand over it for four hours a day for 365 days to get a radiation dose somewhere near the dose limit to members of the public. However, the practice is unacceptable.
Since we decided to increase nuclear power generation, we must explore and mine the indigenous resources of uranium aggressively by adopting safe practices and technology. We must not allow a few NGOs to scare away the public by exaggerating the perceived or imaginary risks of radiation. UCIL must enlighten the discerning sections of the public to exorcise the atomic ghosts created by overzealous nuclear critics.
[*The Author is former Secretary, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board]
Radioactivity in foodstuffs: regulatory steps
PTI FEATURE
VOL NO XXIII(22)-2007 June 2, 2007
SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
PF-86/2007
RADIOACTIVITY IN FOODSTUFFS: REGULATORY STEPS
By Dr K.S.Parthasarathy
The accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power station occurred on April 26, 1986. Shortly thereafter, radioactive fallout has shown up in foodstuffs in various countries. Public got concerned about the health impact of these contaminated food items. Food restrictions in European countries fuelled the fears.
Many felt that contaminated food items may be sold or gifted to third world countries. As a proactive measure, the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB), the competent authority to enforce radiation protection in India, enforced regulatory steps to protect the public from undue radiation exposures.
In order to evolve a consensus opinion of a wide cross section of specialists on radiation protection policies, AERB organised in 1987 a national meeting of senior specialists from the Ministries of Agriculture, Food and Civil Supplies, Health and Family Welfare, Commerce, Environment and Forests, Bureau of Indian Standards, Marine Products Export Development Authority, Export Inspection Council, Tea Board, Indian Dairy Corporation, National Institute of Nutrition, Consumer Guidance Society of India, Research Institutes dealing with Food Technology, Fisheries and Toxicology and Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC).
Radioactive releases from nuclear facilities may contaminate foodstuffs AERB allows nuclear power plants and other facilities to release certain amount of radionuclides. Robust, administrative and technical machinery are in place to monitor and measure the releases to ensure that they do not cause radiation exposures above the limits prescribed by the Board. Radioactive materials may get released if reactor accidents occur. This is what happened in Chernobyl.
The International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) has stipulated dose limits for members of the public. In the absence of other precedents to go by, the specialists group in India decided that the contribution from man made radionuclides in food items is only a small fraction of this dose limit. This led to overly conservative values of concentrations.
Based on the recommendations of the specialists, AERB prescribed the permissible levels of Iodine 131, Strontium-90 and Caesium-137 in food items
AERB recognized three BARC laboratories at Kolkata, Kalpakkam and Trombay for measuring and certifying radioactivity in the food samples sent to them. The Directorate General of Health Services instructed their offices located at ports to send samples of imported food for testing. This covered the bulk imports of food items.
BARC laboratories tested thousands of samples over the past several years. On rare occasions, when they found samples containing levels above those prescribed by AERB they issued suitable instructions.
A development, which received wide media coverage, pertained to the safety of 200 Metric Ton of Irish butter imported into India. Three office bearers of the Maharashtra State Government Employees' Federation approached the High Court of Bombay for an appropriate order restraining the respondents (Union of India, the Indian Dairy Corporation, The Dairy Development Commissioner, The General Manager, Greater Bombay Milk Scheme, Bombay, Maharashtra State and the Bombay Municipal Corporation.) from importing any milk or milk products and in particular butter from Ireland.
Originally, the petitioners limited their prayer to the extent of requiring the respondents not to use, distribute or sell for human consumption the butter imported from the European Economic Community Countries in a ship called Black Falcon. However, during the course of the hearing, the petitioners revealed that butter has already arrived in Bombay in some other ships also. The petitioners argued that the relief required was to prevent the respondents from utilizing the butter, which has arrived in any other way.
The petitioners contended that any food article imported from countries in Europe and especially from Ireland after the Chernobyl disaster contains or in all probability likely to contain radioactivity and therefore, its consumption is harmful from the long-term point of view to the population of India.
At one stage, the High Court wanted to know on what basis AERB determined the permissible limit of radioactivity and in particular, whether this permissible limit has been determined based on consumption by human beings of any natural food in which radioactivity was present or was it based on external irradiation. The Court also wanted to know whether natural foods contain radioactivity under normal circumstances The High Court relied upon a letter from Secretary AERB, which answered these questions.
A Division bench of the High Court rejected the petition. In another writ petition (4858 of 1987) the petitioners produced greater quantity of material highlighting the problem. The Court rejected this petition as well.
The petitioners then filed a special leave petition in the Supreme Court of India.
After hearing the counsels for the petitioners and respondents, the Supreme Court thought it desirable to appoint a committee of three experts namely Professor M G K Menon, D. P K Iyengar and Mr G V K Rao to give its opinion on the following question: “Whether milk and dairy products and other food products containing man-made radio-nuclides within permissible levels by the AERB on 27th August 1987 are safe and/or harmless for human consumption”.
After perusing the opinion of the committee of experts, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition.
The Court noted the letters sent in reply to the petitioners by some internationally known scientists including Nobel Laureates tending to show that it is desirable to avoid food stuffs containing low level radioactivity, which, according to them, might in the long run prove to be hazardous.
“What is remarkable about these letters is that they are in general terms and only represent a particular school of thought. Surely the Committee of experts comprising of two eminent scientists and an equally well-known Agro-economist was well aware of this point of view”, the Court observed.
In February 2003, AERB standardized the procedures and published the requirements for accrediting more laboratories to measure radioactivity in various commodities.
The facilities to measure radioactivity in food and other commodities exist in many institutions in India If the need arises, AERB can accredit them after appropriate review. - PTI FEATURE
[Dr.K.S.Parthasarathy is former Secretary, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board]
VOL NO XXIII(22)-2007 June 2, 2007
SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
PF-86/2007
RADIOACTIVITY IN FOODSTUFFS: REGULATORY STEPS
By Dr K.S.Parthasarathy
The accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power station occurred on April 26, 1986. Shortly thereafter, radioactive fallout has shown up in foodstuffs in various countries. Public got concerned about the health impact of these contaminated food items. Food restrictions in European countries fuelled the fears.
Many felt that contaminated food items may be sold or gifted to third world countries. As a proactive measure, the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB), the competent authority to enforce radiation protection in India, enforced regulatory steps to protect the public from undue radiation exposures.
In order to evolve a consensus opinion of a wide cross section of specialists on radiation protection policies, AERB organised in 1987 a national meeting of senior specialists from the Ministries of Agriculture, Food and Civil Supplies, Health and Family Welfare, Commerce, Environment and Forests, Bureau of Indian Standards, Marine Products Export Development Authority, Export Inspection Council, Tea Board, Indian Dairy Corporation, National Institute of Nutrition, Consumer Guidance Society of India, Research Institutes dealing with Food Technology, Fisheries and Toxicology and Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC).
Radioactive releases from nuclear facilities may contaminate foodstuffs AERB allows nuclear power plants and other facilities to release certain amount of radionuclides. Robust, administrative and technical machinery are in place to monitor and measure the releases to ensure that they do not cause radiation exposures above the limits prescribed by the Board. Radioactive materials may get released if reactor accidents occur. This is what happened in Chernobyl.
The International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) has stipulated dose limits for members of the public. In the absence of other precedents to go by, the specialists group in India decided that the contribution from man made radionuclides in food items is only a small fraction of this dose limit. This led to overly conservative values of concentrations.
Based on the recommendations of the specialists, AERB prescribed the permissible levels of Iodine 131, Strontium-90 and Caesium-137 in food items
AERB recognized three BARC laboratories at Kolkata, Kalpakkam and Trombay for measuring and certifying radioactivity in the food samples sent to them. The Directorate General of Health Services instructed their offices located at ports to send samples of imported food for testing. This covered the bulk imports of food items.
BARC laboratories tested thousands of samples over the past several years. On rare occasions, when they found samples containing levels above those prescribed by AERB they issued suitable instructions.
A development, which received wide media coverage, pertained to the safety of 200 Metric Ton of Irish butter imported into India. Three office bearers of the Maharashtra State Government Employees' Federation approached the High Court of Bombay for an appropriate order restraining the respondents (Union of India, the Indian Dairy Corporation, The Dairy Development Commissioner, The General Manager, Greater Bombay Milk Scheme, Bombay, Maharashtra State and the Bombay Municipal Corporation.) from importing any milk or milk products and in particular butter from Ireland.
Originally, the petitioners limited their prayer to the extent of requiring the respondents not to use, distribute or sell for human consumption the butter imported from the European Economic Community Countries in a ship called Black Falcon. However, during the course of the hearing, the petitioners revealed that butter has already arrived in Bombay in some other ships also. The petitioners argued that the relief required was to prevent the respondents from utilizing the butter, which has arrived in any other way.
The petitioners contended that any food article imported from countries in Europe and especially from Ireland after the Chernobyl disaster contains or in all probability likely to contain radioactivity and therefore, its consumption is harmful from the long-term point of view to the population of India.
At one stage, the High Court wanted to know on what basis AERB determined the permissible limit of radioactivity and in particular, whether this permissible limit has been determined based on consumption by human beings of any natural food in which radioactivity was present or was it based on external irradiation. The Court also wanted to know whether natural foods contain radioactivity under normal circumstances The High Court relied upon a letter from Secretary AERB, which answered these questions.
A Division bench of the High Court rejected the petition. In another writ petition (4858 of 1987) the petitioners produced greater quantity of material highlighting the problem. The Court rejected this petition as well.
The petitioners then filed a special leave petition in the Supreme Court of India.
After hearing the counsels for the petitioners and respondents, the Supreme Court thought it desirable to appoint a committee of three experts namely Professor M G K Menon, D. P K Iyengar and Mr G V K Rao to give its opinion on the following question: “Whether milk and dairy products and other food products containing man-made radio-nuclides within permissible levels by the AERB on 27th August 1987 are safe and/or harmless for human consumption”.
After perusing the opinion of the committee of experts, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition.
The Court noted the letters sent in reply to the petitioners by some internationally known scientists including Nobel Laureates tending to show that it is desirable to avoid food stuffs containing low level radioactivity, which, according to them, might in the long run prove to be hazardous.
“What is remarkable about these letters is that they are in general terms and only represent a particular school of thought. Surely the Committee of experts comprising of two eminent scientists and an equally well-known Agro-economist was well aware of this point of view”, the Court observed.
In February 2003, AERB standardized the procedures and published the requirements for accrediting more laboratories to measure radioactivity in various commodities.
The facilities to measure radioactivity in food and other commodities exist in many institutions in India If the need arises, AERB can accredit them after appropriate review. - PTI FEATURE
[Dr.K.S.Parthasarathy is former Secretary, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)