Dr. Raja Ramanna : some reminescences

I am reproducing my article on Dr Raja Ramanna, eminent nuclear scientist. I published it in the NUCLEAR INDIA (Novemebr 2004) the official publication of the Department of Atomic Energy.

Dr.K.S.Parthasarathy




DR RAJA RAMANNA

Dr. Raja Ramanna former Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) died at the age of 79 at Mumabi on September 24, 2004. Dr. Ramanna took over as Chairman, AEC after serving as Director, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre for a number of years during which period he headed the team that conducted India’s first Nuclear Experiment at Pokran in 1974. He was a member of the Atomic Energy Commission until April 2004. Dr. Ramanna also served as Minister of state for Defence, Member of Parliament in Rajya Sabha and Scientific Advisor to the Defence Minister. He was decorated with Padma Vibhushan besides Padma Bhushan and Padma Shri in recognition of his achievements. Dr. Ramanna was also a very good musician and pianoist.

A condolence meeting was held at Bhabha Atomic Research Centre on September 27, 2004 to pay homage to Dr. Raja Ramanna. The condolence meeting was attended by Minister of State in the Prime Minister’s Office Shri Prithvi Raj Chavan, Dr R. Chidambaram Scientific Advisor to PM, Dr. Anil Kakodkar Chairman Atomic Energy Commission, former Chairmen AEC Dr. H.N. Sethna & Dr. P.K. Iyengar besides others. They offered their tributes and personal condolence messages. Dr Banerjee, Director BARC read out the condolence message on behalf of the Indian Atomic Energy family.

Condolence Message
We, the members of the Atomic Energy family, deeply mourn the sad demise of Dr. Raja Ramanna in the early hours of September 24, 2004, at Bombay Hospital, Mumbai. His outstanding leadership and contributions to the Atomic Energy programme and the Defence Research in the country for over half a century would remain a valuable legacy for the nation for a long time to come. The inspiration he provided to a whole generation of scientists as Professor at the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (TIFR), as Director, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC), as Chief of the Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO) & Scientific Advisor to Raksha Mantri, as Chairman and Member, Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), as Member of Rajya Sabha and as Union Minister of State for Defence had endeared him to one and all. We, in the Department of Atomic Energy, have been the recipients of his continued guidance as he was the Chairman, Science Research Council. Dr.Ramanna was not only a brilliant scientist who contributed immensely to the country’s scientific programmes but also a very humane and compassionate person, besides being an accomplished musician. On behalf of the entire Atomic Energy family, we wish to convey to Dr.Ramanna’s family our heartfelt condolences and pray to God for the peace to the departed soul and for the strength to the bereaved family to bear this irreparable loss.

DR RAJA RAMANNA : SOME REMINISCENCES

(NUCLEAR INDIA NOVEMBER 2004)

Dr. K.S.Parthasarathy
Former Secretary, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board

While paying tribute to Dr.Homi Bhabha, Mr J.R.D.Tata observed: “I believe that the greatest contribution Homi made to India’s development in to the modern state it is fast becoming, lies in training and bringing out to their full capability a host of young scientists and administrators who, today, lead so many of India’s scientific and technical establishments”.

Among the young scientists handpicked by Dr Bhabha, Dr Ramanna stands out as a shining example. One of his earliest responsibilities was to organise the training programme at the Atomic Energy Establishment Trombay (AEET). Dr Ramanna proposed that the school may be called the Atomic Energy Establishment Trombay Training School (AEET TS).

Dr. K.K.Damodaran, former Head of Training Division, who assisted Dr Ramanna in nurturing the training programme, remembered that one of the mandates of the school was to take steps to attract young, bright and talented students from the universities. During training, they acquired the needed skills and knowledge in nuclear science and technology. The curriculum was need-based and dynamic so that the trainees would be well prepared when the technology gets upgraded .After the successful training; they obtained secure but challenging jobs. Their rigorous training prepared them adequately to accept effortlessly the challenges of any future technology.

Dr. Bhabha and Dr. Ramanna knew that since nuclear technology is a strategic technology, free flow of knowledge and materials will not be forthcoming. They were conscious of the long-term need for self-reliance.

According to Dr.P. K. Iyengar, former Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission and long-term associate of Dr. Ramanna, Dr. Ramanna used to say that the selection of trainees is essentially a “statistical operation”. Dr Ramanna believed that in a developing country like India, if we want to get the most talented people, we have to choose every year a few hundred from the vast pool of academically sound young people. If ten out of two hundred turn out to be outstanding, the selection process will be successful. This is actually what happened. The systematic recruitment of outstanding young people year after year is the reason for the success of BARC Training School programme. A significant number of those selected became leaders in science and technology as they enhanced their analytic skills and creativity in the multidisciplinary ambience provided at Trombay.

Dr Ramanna’s characteristic humility forbade him from waxing eloquent on this notably successful human resource development programme. In his autography “Years of Pilgrimage”, Dr.Ramanna spared eight sentences to describe some of its features.

Dr Bhabha and Dr. Ramanna realized that the universities had become rather ineffectual in imparting useful science education. They did not want to deplete the universities of the few good teachers by recruiting them directly. They started the training school in August 1957 by recruiting 143 trainees; forty nine in the engineering stream and 104 in the science stream.

Dr.P.S. Nagarajan, who belonged to the first batch vividly remembers their first encounter with Dr Ramanna. The Administrative Officer asked the trainees to assemble near the dining hall within two days of their arrival. Dr Ramannna was scheduled to address them.

Nobody noticed when a young officer came, stood near the small table nearly reclining against it and started talking. Nothing was audible as there was too much noise. One of the trainees approached the officer and told him that they were waiting for Dr. Ramanna. “I am Dr Ramanna”, the young speaker revealed. Nobody could believe that the person who looked like a college boy was indeed Dr Ramanna.

Dr Ramanna chaired the training school co-ordination committee from the very beginning. Dr K.K.Damodaran was its Member- Secretary. Drs A.S.Rao and Jagdish Shankar and other eminent scientists were members of the Committee. The Member Secretary enjoyed the powers of the Head of a Division to carry out the daily administration of the school.

Shri S.K.Mehta, former Director, Reactor group, BARC remembers that for the first training course, DAE explored various options. They decided that for mechanical engineers, there should be greater emphasis on power plant engineering.

The Institute of Science, Bangalore, was then offering an MS course (of two year duration) in power plant engineering; the Institute agreed to offer a specially organised course (though heavily loaded) for about six months in power plant engineering along with basic nuclear engineering courses.
DAE sent two batches of mechanical engineers to Bangalore, one to attend the special course and the other for the regular MS course.

In Mumbai, the DAE faculty further trained the batch which attended theshort course with emphasis on Nuclear Science and Technology.

Initially, DAE assigned the chemical and electrical engineers to various units/ sections /groups of the department; later they underwent training in Nuclear Science and Technology as for the mechanical engineering batch.

Senior Scientists and Engineers interacted with the trainees throughout the course both technically and socially. Dr Bhabha, Dr. Sethna and Dr Ramanna took very keen interest. They developed strong bonds; and this turned out to be a great incentive for the trainees to perform their duties well as they joined various units of DAE.

Dr Nagarajan remembers that the science stream remained at the headquarters. It consisted of graduates and postgraduates. The postgraduates felt that they knew every topic. They used to pompously ask questions to the lecturers. Are you an MSc or BSc? One of the lecturers used to ask before answering. (He was an eminent professor from the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research; he felt that the postgraduates are asking questions for the sake of asking!).

He explained the points well if the questioner was a B.Sc. Trainees used to approach Dr Ramanna whenever they faced any difficulty in the training school. He gladly offered guidance and advice He used to tell them that knowing the subject is different from understanding it. The apparently existed B.Sc-M.Sc conflict was really artificial. When the final result came, the first six ranks in the physics stream went to B.Scs!

By the time the second batch of trainees joined in August 1958, a well organized programme was in place. Thereafter all trainees received training in Mumbai itself.

I belonged to the seventh batch. Many who came from villages and small towns would like to forget the first few days in Bandra where the hostel was located. Most trainees were homesick. Travelling by suburban train to reach Express Building in Churchgate and after a few months, Harichandrai House in Marine lines was an unsettling experience.

Most of us were used to one or two examinations over the year, not weekly examinations , take home assignments, periodic viva voce, tutorials and lectures at such a rapid rate; life was too busy.
During the first week, we had one of the most memorable and comforting experiences. Dr Raja Ramanna visited us. He wore his hallmark khaki pant and white shirt. He was a very simple person. We could approach him any time. Very often, he came to the hostel. As the then Director, Physics Group, the training school was his turf; He took special interest in the welfare of students.

In our formative years, few had occasion to interact with Dr Bhabha closely. Dr.Ramanna was different. He was our mentor.

At the informal meetings, he listened to us carefully and spoke quietly. He spiced his talk with funny anecdotes. Each one of us felt that he was talking to us individually. His reassuring demeanor gave us confidence.

“Dr Ramanna was truly great, he was totally devoted to science”,”he gave me free hand”, Dr Damodaran who was intimately associated with the training school from 1957 to 1981 gratefully acknowledges. He remembers that Dr Ramanna used to visit the training school and the students hostel once in two weeks. Dr Ramanna’s abiding interest in the training programme was a source of inspiration to all.

It is interesting to speculate why Dr. Ramanna ensured that the trainees received well-organised training before they formally joined the AEET as staff. He showed a greater degree of understanding and compassion to the trainees’ problems than others. His autobiography is very revealing in this context.

He arrived at Kings College, London in September 1945 after travelling for a fortnight by Orion, a ship which carried over 5000 troops on repatriation from various war centres in South Asia. He was among the 300 or so other passengers. They had to suffer unspeakable deprivations. They had only two door-less WCs for the 300 of them and had to queue up at odd times of the day or night to relieve themselves! To top it all, the troops were unfriendly and abusive.

After reaching London, his first interview was with one Dr F.C. Champion (“a handsome young man in his youth, but looked most severe with his thick glasses and curt manners which seemed very disturbing” Dr Ramanna later recalled). Dr Ramanna felt very unhappy because Champion told him that he could register only for an M.Sc., though he had been admitted for a Ph.D. degree. I recall that this was a common problem to many who went to UK for their Ph.D.

Dr Ramanna used the fine art of flattery to good humour Champion. He claimed that it was easy for him as he was brought up in the Mysore court! Dr Champion sent him to one Dr Chapman on a possible problem of establishing correlation between the cosmic ray phenomenon and ionospheric activity. Chapman, an expert in ionospheric studies, told him that he did not see any correlation. Dr Ramanna’s persuasive skills did not work.

Shortly, he met the new head of the department of physics, Dr Alan Nunn May who had worked in Canada on the British atomic energy project. To his great relief, May told Ramanna that registering for a Ph.D degree would not be difficult.

Dr May initiated Dr Ramanna in to the field of experimental nuclear physics. Ramanna’s delight was short-lived. With in a few days, Police arrested Dr May for leaking atomic secrets to the Russians. Dr Ramanna went back to Dr Champion. By then he had developed enough confidence. He worked in the basement and subbasement rooms next to the King’s College hospital mortuary; all the time suffering from the smell of formaldehyde. “Occasionally on the days when we felt frustrated we toyed with the idea of disposing of our professor and supervisor through this route” he confessed!
No wonder that Dr Ramanna was compassionate and empathised with the trainees and always lent his ear to their problems.

Dr Ramanna initiated and nurtured a human resource development programme at such a large scale. Till 2003, the training school provided 7244 trainee officers to various Units of the Department of Atomic Energy. It was unique in India. Dr Ramanna and his colleagues took innovative steps which paid rich dividends. They used the services of the large numbers of trained scientists and engineers already available in Trombay to teach a small number of bright students recruited for the training school. Often the faculty exceeded the number of students! This interaction benefited the students and the teachers. The latter could concentrate on the few who had already proved their worth.

The training programme helped to harmonize the standards of students from different universities. Trainees in various streams had to study some subjects which might not initially be to their liking. For instance, those in the engineering stream had to study health physics. The trainees in the science stream had to study reactor theory. The truly multidisciplinary programme prepared the trainees to face the challenges in their career.

Dr Ramanna used to personally participate at various stages of the training programme. He kept a spreadsheet containing the complete details including the performance of the trainees before him in the final allotment interview. In a few cases, if he felt that the performance in some subject was not up to expectation he would ask the trainee the reason for the shortfall.

Dr Ramanna constantly reminded the trainees about their future roles in the Department. When occasion demanded the smiling teacher transformed into a steely, taciturn and stubborn disciplinarian.

As a person who spurned the charm of greener pastures and responded to the call of Dr. Bhabha to come to India, he was concerned about brain drain. He felt that the training school churned out scientists for the future and also helped greatly to stall “the emigration syndrome”. Dr Ramanna’s contribution to the training school programme is as significant as his role in placing India in the nuclear map of the world.

Agricultural and Research Application of Radiation

Agricultural and Research Applications of Radiation

By Dr K S Parthasarathy

In 1911, George de Hevesey, a Hungarian student working in Manchester University suspected that some of the meals that appeared regularly might be made from leftovers from the preceding days or even week. He put a small amount of naturally radioactive material into the leftovers of a meal. Many days later his land lady served the same food again. He confirmed his suspicion by using a simple radiation detection instrument- a gold leaf electroscope. The landlady sacked him.

Every one forgot the landlady! But George de Hevesey went on to win the Nobel Prize in 1943 and "Atoms for Peace Award" in 1959. He probably carried out the first experiment using a radioactive tracer.

Scientists and technologists use radiation and radioisotopes in a few hundred research and agricultural institutions in India.

Fertilizers are expensive; inefficient and improper use of fertilizers can damage the environment. We must release only minimum amount to the environment.

We can study how fertilizers move in the biosphere by labeling them with a radioactive tracer such as phosphorus-32. Simple experimental procedures show us where and how fertilizer should be placed in soil. We can quantitatively measure the amount of fertilizer used up by the plants.

Studies of pesticides, labelled with radioactive carbon, will help to optimize pesticide use.

Crop losses due to insect infestation are as high as 30 per cent in developing countries. Chemical insecticides are useful to eradicate insects; but are not often very effective. Some insects develop resistance. Insecticide residues are poisonous. Sterile Insect Technique effectively controls insect population.

Scientists rear male insects in the laboratory in large numbers and sterilize them with radiation before releasing them into the affected field. When these sterile males mate with females no offspring is produced. The insect population will reduce drastically. Scientists did such experiments in Mexico to eradicate Mediterranean fruit fly and the screw worm.

Ionizing radiation can be used in plant breeding. At one time, about 13 per cent of all the mutant plants released in the world came from India. Mutation breeding consists of choosing plants with desirable qualities and breeding them separately.

Mutations do occur in plants naturally. Irradiation speeds it up helping to enhance the range of variability of plants. Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) developed and released 35 mutant crops of ground nut, mung-bean, black-gram, pigeon pea, mustard, jute, rice and soya-bean for commercial cultivation.

A dosa or Idli from anywhere in Maharashtra will mostly contain urid dal (black-gram) produced by mutation breeding developed in BARC. Elsewhere in India, the chance of eating dosa containing BARC- technology-supported urid dal is nearly 50 per cent. Trombay Akola Urid (TAU-1) dal occupies 95 per cent of the area under black-gram cultivation in Maharashtra.

The average yield of Trombay Groundnut (TG-26) was high as 2,500 kg per ha; under improved agronomical practices yield was as high as 10,000 kg ha.

Since January 1, 1974, gamma sterilization of medical products started with the setting up of ISOMED at Trombay. Radiation sterilization ensures that disposable syringes, catheter and other medical devices are absolutely safe. ISOMED processed over 8200 cubic metre medical products during 2007-08.

The International Institute of Population Studies, Mumbai in a study found that the infant mortality rates in Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh fell by 25 to 30 per cent as a result of distribution of "Dai kits" which consist of basic radiation sterilized items required for delivery in rural homes.

Radiation sterilization is a simple process and is carried out at ambient temperature; it is highly reliable. It does not leave any residue. Sterilization is possible in packaged form.

BARC successfully demonstrated that radiation treatment of sewage removes 99.99 per cent disease causing bacteria. Drying the irradiated sludge on sand beds yields pathogen free dried sludge. BARC operates the Sludge Hygienization Research Irradiator (SHRI) at Baroda in collaboration with the Gujarat Government and Baroda Municipality. BARC supplied 600 tons of irradiated sludge as enriched manure for field applications.

Post-harvest losses of food-grains in India are as high as 20 to 50 per cent. Radiation processing of food eliminates insect infestation in food grains, reduces microbiological contamination in other foods, and inhibits sprouting of onion and potatoes and delays ripening of fruits such as mangoes. Radiation processing will never make any product radioactive.

India has exported 160 tons of radiation processed mangoes to USA for the first time in 17 years, starting from April 2007. Radiation processing is the only effective treatment against mango seed weevil and mango pulp weevil. USA approved six varieties of mangoes (Kesar, Alphonse, Banganppalli, Lagra, Dussehry and Neelam) for irradiation. The Krishi Utpadan Sanrakshan Kendra (KRISHAK) irradiation unit is the only cobalt-60 facility outside USA that was approved by the US Department of Agriculture.

Indian exporters of the king of fruits may now re-enter the large, premium markets of USA, Japan and other countries.

From April to November 2007, the radiation unit at Vashi processed more than 1000 metric tons of spices and allied products. Six out of 20 private companies with which BRIT signed Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) to set up radiation processing plants have started functioning in different parts of India.

The Ministry of Food Processing Industries (MFPI) provides substantial loans and grants to any private sector organization to start radiation processing units and or to build common facilities.

Since 1958, scientists have been using radiotracer methods to study silt movement in Indian harbours.

BARC scientists carried out 70 studies for harbour development and dredging programmes by using radioisotopes such as scandium-46 or Gold 198 in Kolkata, Kochi, Karwar, Mangalore and Marmagoa. Such studies helped to identify where silt must be placed after dredging.

Scientists and engineers use radioisotopic methods to trace and measure the extent of underground water resources.

Radioisotopes are useful in every field. We have not yet started using them on a massive scale, though we began activities in the field during the late 50s.

AERB web site www.aerb.gov.in. provides information on the regulatory requirements for using radiation sources in India. (PTI)

India's programme to develop fast breeder reactors

The article reviews the construction activities at the Indira Gandhi Atomic Research Centre at Kalpakkam, where scientists and engineers are installing India's first prototype fast breeder reactor. It heralds the beginning of the second stage of India's long term atomic energy programme.

K.S.Parthasarathy



June 7, 2008
(A PTI feature)
India’s Programme to Develop Fast Breeder Reactor
By Dr K S Parthasarathy
While nuclear policy planners and parliamentarians are debating the pros and cons of the Indo- US civil nuclear cooperation agreement, scientists and engineers at the Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research (IGCAR), at Kalpakkam, Tamil Nadu are leaping forward to develop fast breeder reactors in the second stage of India’s nuclear power programme.
DAE set up the Centre in 1971 for "...conducting broad based multidisciplinary programme of scientific research and advanced engineering, directed towards the development of sodium cooled Fast Breeder Reactor [FBR] technology, in India".
For scientists at IGCAR, "Fast reactors for energy security" is the most important slogan.
The just released,140 page, Annual report of DAE for 2007-08 gives glimpses of several research and development programmes; the final impact of some of which will be felt only in the coming few decades.
A compendium titled " IGCAR, Excellence with Relevance, High Impact Breakthroughs: Significant Achievements during 2004-07 records 54 articles as benchmarks in Science, 28 in Engineering and 27 in Technology. In 2004-07, IGCAR scientists published 150 articles in peer-reviewed journals and secured 7 patents. Several of these have formed the basis of design and project decisions.
IGCAR is constructing the Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor (PFBR) of 500 MWe capacity at Kalpakkam. Bharatiya Nabhikiya Vidyut Nigam Limited (BHAVINI), a public sector undertaking of the Department of Atomic Energy is implementing the project.
The progress card of IGCAR for 2007-08 is impressive; The Centre completed the detailed design and technology development of PFBR.
The scientists and engineers want the Centre to be a global leader in sodium cooled fast breeder reactor and associated nuclear fuel cycle based technologies by 2020. Their mission is well defined; their stakes are high; they are also in friendly competition with the well established Pressurized Heavy Water (PHWR) technology!
The civil construction of the "Nuclear Island", which will house 17 buildings, is on course. The civil engineers have completed a few of the peripheral buildings such as service water pump house.
Specialists are carrying out safety analysis of important systems by appropriate methodologies.
IGCAR placed purchase orders worth Rs 10,500 million for several major items. The organisation is taking up the procurement of long delivery items with various industries. The industrial manufacturers have delivered safety vessel, thermal baffle, thermal insulation panels and sodium tanks to the site.
Workers are busy fabricating the main reactor vessel at site. PFBR site is now a beehive of construction activities. The laboratories and workshops at Kalpakkam are busy contributing their share to prove that fast reactors will ensure energy security.
For the success of fast reactors, IGCAR needs plutonium.
The source of plutonium will be the 14 PHWRs being operated at Kota, Kalpakkam. Narora, Kakrapara, Kaiga and Tarapur by the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL), a public sector undertaking under the DAE
Of these, two 540 MWe reactors at Tarapur (TAPP-3 & 4), represent the largest capacity single electricity generating units in the country.
The average capacity factor (The capacity factor of a power plant is the ratio of the actual output of a power plant over a period of time and its output if it had operated at full power for the entire time) of Indian PHWRs stabilized to about 60 % in mid 90s and steadily increased to nearly 90% during 2003.
India has readily achieved many international benchmarks. In 2002, the average capacity factor of Indian PHWRs was more than that for all reactors in USA. At the end of September 2002, KAPS- which recorded a capacity factor of 98.4% during the preceding 12 months became the best performing PHWR among 32 such reactors worldwide.
Unit 1 of the Kakrapar Atomic Power Station (KAPS-1) and unit-4 of the Rajasthan Atomic Power Project (RAPP-4) and unit-2 of the Kaiga Generating Station (KGS-2) operated non-stop for 372, 373and 529 days respectively. KGS - 1 & 2 won the gold shield instituted by the Ministry of Power for meritorious performance for the year 2005-06.
Neither technology nor industrial infrastructure limits the way forward to construct and operate more PHWRs. It depends mainly on funds.
Presently, the gestation period for new PHWRs is five years and NPCIL has plans to reduce it to four and a half years. This is a crucial factor, as the installation cost of nuclear power stations is relatively high
Since India has only very modest uranium resources, it has accepted a three stage nuclear power programme.
India chose pressurized heavy water reactors (PHWRs) for the first stage, as these reactors are ideal to use our limited natural uranium resources optimally.
PHWRs offer higher plutonium yield. Plutonium is needed for the second stage of the atomic power programme. PHWR fuel is easy to fabricate. Lastly, Indian industry has the capacity to make various components needed for PHWRs.
IGCAR’s role starts with the second stage of India’s nuclear power programme which depends on setting up fast breeder reactors, backed by reprocessing plants and plutonium-based fuel fabrication plants. These reactors "breed" more fuel than what they consume.
India plans to achieve energy security on a sustainable basis by thorium utilization which is the aim of the third stage of Indian nuclear power programme.
Unlike some advanced countries such as USA, India decided to reprocess spent fuel to extract plutonium, the fuel for its fast breeder reactors. USA can dispose of spent fuel as "nuclear waste", as they have cheap uranium resources.
Indian reactors are operating at low capacity factors now because of mismatch between fuel supply and demand.
This status may be temporary. Operationalisation of Indo US civil nuclear cooperation agreement should have helped.
We can then purchase nuclear fuel from anywhere in the world at competitive price and export nuclear technology and services to other countries after ensuring appropriate safeguards.
Some constraints may slow down the Indian nuclear power programme.
But they will not stop it. Surely and steadily we will go forward. - PTI

Dismal state of medical X-ray safety

This article briefly reviews the dismal status of radiation safety in medical x-ray installations in India.The writer proposes that decentralizing the regulatory activities by forming regional directorates is one of the options to improve the safety status.

K.S.Parthasarathy





Date:05/06/2008 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/thehindu/seta/2008/06/05/

stories/2008060550081400.htm
Back Sci Tech



Dismal state of medical X-ray safety

A study supported by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in 12 developing countries (not including India) showed that the fraction of the medical X-ray images rated as poor was as high as 53 per cent (American Journal of Roentgenology, June 2008). This leads to unnecessary radiation doses to patients due to repeat examinations. The conditions in the 45 hospitals in 12 countries improved as the hospitals started implementing quality assurance programmes. The Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) has complete information on the status of medical X-ray safety nation-wide. However, in the implementation of X-ray safety measures in each installation, India has miles to go.

Analysis of dark room techniques in 175 X-ray departments in India revealed that 12 per cent of these installations were exposing patients to excessive doses of more than 200 per cent because of improper techniques. The use of automatic film developing equipment may help in improving the condition.
Needlessly exposed

A more recent survey of 30 mammography clinics in Mumbai revealed that patients are needlessly exposed to high radiation doses.

Researchers in an AERB project measured skin doses in 12 different examinations. For all types of examinations except skull, the skin doses were mostly within the reference levels published in the Basic Safety Standards for Protection against Ionizing Radiation and the Safety of Radiation Sources.

The ratio of maximum to minimum dose was five for chest X-ray; lumbar spine, eight, thoracic spine (lateral) 8.5 etc. If the doses are too high, it is not good practice as the patient does not receive optimized protection.

There is no justification for exposing patients to such a wide range of doses to get the same clinical benefits.

In 1994, AERB found that nearly 30 per cent of over 30,000 X-ray units it studied were over 15 years old. Older equipment may deliver higher doses. The user of the equipment must evaluate the safety features of each old unit; there are ways to remedy their deficiencies.

There are over 2,500 CT units in the country. The progress in carrying out quality assurance tests of these is very slow.

An AERB supported coordinated research programme covered 785 X-ray units in 495 hospitals. About forty per cent of the 1,15,000 examinations studied were on the reproductive sections of the population; 20 per cent of examinations were on children under 15. Physicians must be extra vigilant in X-raying children as their tissues are growing and as such more sensitive to radiation.

Surveys at 71 CT Units in India revealed that on an average 8.9 per cent of CT procedures were on children; paediatric protocols were not used in 32 of the 71 installations. These centres are exposing children to unjustifiably high radiation doses (The Hindu, March 6, 2008).

India has about 45,000 x-ray units; many of them are very old; about 1500 units are added every year. Each unit must be inspected periodically. Large scale introduction of CT scan units and interventional radiology units calls for greater caution. Enforcing the X-ray safety provisions in the Atomic Energy (Radiation Protection) Rules 2004, is the only way forward to ensure safe use of this potentially powerful tool .

Proactive promotion of X-ray safety is not a substitute for effective implementation of regulations. In 1986, an AERB task group chaired by Dr Arcot Gajraj, an eminent radiologist, recommended decentralization of radiation surveillance programmes for X rays by setting up five Regional Enforcement Directorates.

The suggestion to set up regional directorates came up repeatedly at least once every ten years since 1971! AERB has been persuading the State Governments for the past several years.

State health authorities who are responsible for enforcing AERB provisions in probably the majority of hospitals in each State must get a wake up call.

K.S. PARTHASARATHY
FORMER SECRETARY, AERB

ksparth@yahoo.co.uk

© Copyright 2000 - 2008 The Hindu

Nuclear fuel from N-waste

Since the methods of managing high level nuclear wastes are discussed again and again, I thought that it is worthwhile to recapitulate a suggestion made by BARC scientists in the late eighties. They proposed that the transuranic elements can be removed from nuclear waste.Some of them are better than normal fissile materials.

K.S.Parthasarathy





Nuclear fuel from N-waste
K.S.Parthasarathy

Many people consider management of high-level nuclear waste as a complex issue. The fuel discharged from a nuclear power reactor contains 94 per cent uranium,1 per cent transuranic elements such as neptunium, plutonium, americium and curium and about 5 per cent fission products such as caesium-137, strontium-90 etc

Transuranic elements are long lived and remain toxic for thousands of years. There is international consensus that the nuclear industry can design, construct and operate deep geological repositories to dispose of high-level waste, including transuranic elements permanently.

There may be smarter solutions. A few years ago, scientists from the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre argued that we can eliminate the stigma attached to nuclear waste and nuclear energy, if we recover some of the transuranic elements, and use them as nuclear fuel.

The study, authored by M. Srinivasan, K. Subba Rao, S Garg and P K Iyengar and presented at the 5th International Conference on Emerging Nuclear Energy Systems at Kalsruhe in July 1989 found that each and every isotope of transuranic elements is a more valuable nuclear fuel than the corresponding fissile isotopes of plutonium.

Fission products in the used fuel arise from the splitting of uranium or transuranic elements. Most of the fission products such as caesium-137 which have half-lives of a few tens of years decay relatively rapidly. In a few hundred years, the activity of fission products such as cesium-137 will be negligible.

We must keep the long-lived activity away from the biosphere for a long period because of the presence of long-lived transuranic radionuclides such as plutonium-239 (half-life 24,000 years).

If we destroy transuranic elements by some means, the long-term radiation hazard will reduce substantially; the activity will be insignificant after a few hundred years. One method is to burn them efficiently in fast reactors. Keeping the active material away for a few hundred years is feasible

If we irradiate uranium in light water reactors, at a power level of 1000 MWe for just over a month, every tonne of spent fuel, after a few years of cooling, will contain nearly 10 kg of plutonium, 0.5 kg of neptunium, 0.041 kg of curium and 0.14 kg of americium. These elements are not “wastes”. Scientists will be able to develop innovative recovery methods and fuel fabrication technologies to use these elements.

The production rate of heavy elements in the thorium-uranium-233 cycle is a million times less than those in the uranium-238-uranium-235 cycle. This is because fuels based on uranium-238-uranium-235 cycle need only two successive neutron captures to produce heavier nuclides; the urtanium-233 fuel cycle needs 7 to 8 neutron captures.

There are exotic schemes to transmute radionuclides in waste streams using novel non-fission neutron sources such as spallation targets, superconducting cyclotrons or fusion reactor blankets.

For instance, Yousry Gohar from the Argonne National Laboratory suggested that 344-MW- integrated- fusion power from deuterium-tritium plasmas for 30 years with an availability factor of 0.75, can dispose of 70,000 tons of the US inventory of spent fuel generated up to 2015. The concept eliminates the need for a deep geological repository site.

He claimed that show- casing the device which offers energy from the transmutation process to produce revenue, may help to enhance public acceptance of fusion energy.

Ultimately, the simplicity of the process and the cost- benefit criteria will prevail. BARC study is mostly theoretical. BARC scientists have developed methods to recover heavy elements on a laboratory scale

I justify referring to the 1989 Indian study now because new ways related to high level nuclear waste management are still under discussion. USA and Sweden plan to dispose of the spent fuel without reprocessing. India, France, UK and Japan will reprocess it to recover plutonium.

In 1977, Jimmy Carter halted funding for reprocessing of spent fuel. USA is now considering the revival of the programme .The proposed US policy aims to reduce the number of geologic repositories in USA to one, reuse valuable parts of the used fuel to maximize the energy from uranium ore and to recycle used fuel to minimize waste.

India’s atomic energy programme which Dr. Bhabha proposed in 1954 had all these elements!

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

Uranium munching fungi

Fungi are notable living things with remarkable qualities. Some of them have special biogeochemical attributes which could be used to immobilize uranium, a toxic heavy metal. Certain fungi accumulate uranium upto 0.3 to 0.4 g per g of dry weight.

K.S.Parthasarathy




http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/thscrip/print.pl?file=
2008052950031700.htm&date=2008/05/29/&prd=seta&

Back Sci Tech


Uranium munching fungi
Recently, Dundee University researchers found evidence that fungi can “lock” depleted uranium (DU) into a mineral form that may be less likely to find its way into plants, animals or water supply (Current Biology, May 6).
Depleted uranium
In a new report, they claimed that fungi may have an important role to play in the fate of potentially dangerous depleted uranium left in the environment during the war in Iraq (in 1991 and 2003) and in the Balkans (in 1995 and 1999).
DU is a by-product of uranium enrichment process. It is used to make ammunition because it is dense; also it resists deformation. When a DU round hits a target, it preserves its shape and “self- sharpens”, as it moves forward. Uranium dust generated at the time of impact can create a fierce fire, as uranium is pyrophoric.
British and US forces fired about 320 tonnes of depleted uranium munitions in the 1991 gulf war and may have used up to 2000 tonnes in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. (The British Medical Journal, November 11, 2006). DU is 40 per cent less radioactive than natural uranium. It is chemically toxic like cadmium or lead. The Royal Society studied the possible health impacts of DU.
Long term threat
“Our study … concluded that the soil around the impact site of depleted uranium penetrators may be heavily contaminated, and could be harmful if swallowed by children, for example. In addition, large numbers of corroding depleted uranium penetrators embedded in the ground might pose a long term threat if the uranium leaches into water supplies,” Professor Brian Spratt, who chaired the Royal Society Working Group, clarified.
Royal Society recommended that the fragments of depleted uranium penetrators should be removed and areas of contamination around depleted uranium penetrator impact site should be identified and, where necessary made safe.
The uranium munching fungi may be useful agents in remediation and re-vegetation techniques for soils polluted by uranium. These humble living things serve nature uniquely and incredibly. Some decompose organic matter.
Any material lying un-protected for some time in humid conditions will have hair like fungi growing on them. Some of these fungi have very useful biogeochemical properties.
All the species of fungi tested by UK researchers exhibited high DU tolerance. They could colonize uranium metal surfaces forming moisture-retaining bio-films. Fungi grew in the form of fine filaments.
Metal coupon
In the presence of air, the metal coupon corroded producing black and yellow decomposition products; they formed mixed oxides.
Fungal bio-films retained moisture on DU surfaces and facilitated corrosion. DU-colonizing fungi grew over the corrosion products.
After interacting with the DU metal, the fungi filaments developed a yellow hue in its growing part clearly demonstrating uranyl migration.
The metal coupons lost 5.5-8 per cent of weight over three months. Scientists studied the chemical species released in the micro-environment. DU- exposed fungi produced oxalic acid. Most such fungi showed greater accumulation of uranium with increasing amounts of excreted oxalate (Cell Biology, May 6, 2008)
DU-exposed fungi exhibited a notable ability to accumulate mobilized uranium in their biomass to the extent of 0.3 to 0.4 g per g of dry weight. The scientists clearly demonstrated extensive bio-mineralization by using sophisticated analytical tools.
Leaching out
Geoffrey Gadd, one of the researchers asserted that the fungal-produced minerals are capable of long term retention, so this may prevent uptake of uranium by plants, animals and microbes.
“It might also prevent the spent uranium from leaching out from the soil.” he claimed.
Cleaning up a vast uranium contaminated area is yet to be demonstrated.
K.S. PARTHASARATHY
Former Secretary, AERB (ksparth@yahoo.co.uk)
© Copyright 2000 - 2008 The Hindu

Nuclear power: Deal, discussion and debates

The article compares some of the debates in which scientists and journalists participated. Looking at the current scene, the author concludes that they may not get any support from any politician, defending the nuclear cause.

K.S.Parthasarathy




Nuclear power: Deal, discussion & debates
By Dr. K S Parthasarathy
When the die appears to be cast, skeptics may wonder, how the protagonists and antagonists of the Indo-US civil nuclear cooperation agreement carry on discussions for hours at a stretch and that too on several sessions over many days! A blessing in disguise is the wholehearted participation of the media, opinion makers, policy planners and parliamentarians in the discussion and the debates on a topic such as nuclear power which interested only a handful of journalists over the past several decades!
Public learnt many facts. China which was far behind India is going ahead with an ambitious nuclear power programme. They do not mind breaking bread with nuclear vendors from any country so long as they get best deals from them. Their proletariat past does not inhibit them from securing nuclear technology from anyone.
India's hope for nuclear capacity addition in the near term will remain just a hope, without operationalising the civil nuclear agreement.
Indian nuclear power reactors are working at low capacity factors as there is a "mismatch between nuclear fuel supply and demand" (NPC Annual report 2006-07, confirmed recently in Parliament). India's uranium ore is of very low grade. Its uranium resources have been updated to 1,07,268 tonnes of U308 (DAE Annual Report, 2007-08).
During 2006, the production figures (in tonnes) for uranium reported by the World Nuclear Association were: World, 39429; Canada, 9862; Australia, 7593; USA, 1672; China 750; India, 177; Pakistan, 45; France, 5;
Scientists learnt a few lessons. Politicians will remain neutral in any nuclear debate when public is a party. They expect scientists to satisfy the public and the anti nuclear activists, though nuclear programme is a national programme. Scientists cannot depend on political leaders' support for nuclear activities such as uranium mining. Politicians may not correct wrong notions of the public, even when they know the facts; they believe that such efforts may erode their vote banks.
Right from 1947, Nehru's vision and Bhabha's mission on atomic energy coincided. After due discussions with the bureaucracy, they set up a sound administrative mechanism to respond swiftly, effectively and decisively to the demands from this nascent field. Scientists could not have asked for more!
It is instructive to look at the past discussions and debates. When Dr Bhabha organised the first National Symposium on Atomic Energy during November 26 and 27, 1954, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, the then Prime Minister and his entire cabinet, scientists from other institutions, industrialists and some members of Parliament attended the meeting. Nehru himself presided over the entire conference except for a short period when Mr. KD.Malaviya, a senior cabinet minister took the chair. Times have changed!
The symposium was Nehru's response to remarks in Parliament by eminent physicist Dr.Meghnad Saha and others. Nuclear scientists in India largely remained out of public gaze for long. Other than attending a few press conferences, media also paid no attention. Even mild criticism could upset scientists; they were not used to it. Occasionally, a few scientists portrayed journalists who challenged official views as trouble makers!
Very few journalists knew the intricacies of the subject. Those who knew could not get access to scientists. Scientists were reluctant to communicate. Mixing with the media was considered a risky occupation!
Many young journalists realised that they could make good copies by mixing news with "radiation and radioactivity". Newspaper headlines such as "Tarapur set to explode", "A bomb ticking somewhere in Hyderabad", were hilarious.
The Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) was set up in November 1983. As per its mandate, AERB remains open with the public. The Members of the Board addressed a few press conferences, mostly, after the meetings of the Board. There were some controversies, but by and large press coverage was objective.
From August 9 to 11, 1986 Sampoorna Kranti Vidyalaya Vedchhi, an NGO dedicated to a non nuclear India, held a seminar on "Atoms in India" at Sasmira Hall, Worli, Bombay. Five officials from AERB and a few officials from Nuclear Power Board attended the seminar.
The NGO did not see any difference between nuclear power reactors and nuclear weapons. V R. Krishna Iyer (Former Judge of the Supreme Court) inaugurated the seminar.
We described the safety features of nuclear reactors, explained how high level radioactive wastes are "vitrified" dispelling the wrong notion that waste is stored in glass containers! we answered several questions from the audience. Probably, we could not convince everyone but the dialogue was satisfying.
Initiating a desirable shift in policy, Dr.M.R.Srinivasan, the then Chairman Atomic Energy Commission, opened the doors of AEC to its critics. Senior officers of DAE and AERB participated in many meetings.
On December 5, 1987, the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre Officer's Association (BARCOA) organized a panel discussion on "Issues in Nuclear Technology". Dr M.R.Srinivasan, Prof De, Chairman, AERB, Shri S.L. Kati, Managing Director, Nuclear Power Corporation and Shri M.H.P. Rao, former Director, Nuclear Power Board spoke.
The panelists included Amalendu Das Gupta (The Statesman), Praful Bidwai (The Times of India). Ivan Fera (The Illustrated Weekly), G.S.Bhargava (formerly of Indian Express) and Professor Direndra Sharma. For first time, antagonists and protagonists of nuclear technology shared the platform to discuss a wide range of topics.
The Government of Karnataka held a national workshop on nuclear power projects with special reference to Kaiga at Bangalore on December 10 and 11, 1988. Shri S.R. Bommai, Chief Minister of Karnataka inaugurated the workshop. Speakers included planners, economists, professors, anti nuclear activists and journalists.
Emotional outbursts and occasional melodrama sustained the audience' interest. Speakers who are used to sober discussions found it harder to cope with some amount of heckling! It was something like the massacre of the innocents. Dr. Srinivasan rose to the occasion. He marshaled facts and figures to articulate eloquently the international consensus on nuclear power.
While Shri Bommai was speaking, power failed prompting him to say that we cannot live without power. A picture in the Indian Express vividly portrayed the situation!
PTI Feature

Dwindling helium supply

A professor at Washington University stated that helium is being depleted rapidly and the supply will be over with in the next eight years. Science & technology without helium is unthinkable. This article reviews the status of availability of helium world-wide and refers to the effort made indigenously to extract helium from Indian sources.

K.S.Parthasarathy





Science Tribune April 25, 2008


Dwindling helium supply
K.S. Parthasarathy
During the first week of this year, Prof Lee Sobotka at Washington University warned that helium is being depleted so rapidly in the world’s largest reserve, outside of Amarillo, Texas, that supplies are expected to be depleted there within the next eight years.
“Helium is nonrenewable and irreplaceable……… unlike hydrocarbon fuels (natural gas or oil) there are no biosynthetic ways to make an alternative to helium”, he clarified. It is a rare gas with many properties critical to several applications in high technology.
As helium does not become radioactive, it is a good coolant in nuclear reactors. Helium is the primary coolant in Pebble Bed Modular Reactors, innovative reactors of 165 MWe, being installed in South Africa. Helium is used as cover gas in the Indian pressurized heavy water reactors
Helium being non-flammable is a safer gas to fill balloons than hydrogen. It is an ideal inert gas shield for arc welding. In some countries, helium is cheaper than argon, another gas used for the same purpose. Helium is an excellent protective gas in growing silicon and germanium crystals.
It is the pressurizing agent of choice for liquid fuel rockets. Helium is a leak detection agent to identify extremely tiny leaks. Helium’s role in nuclear magnetic resonance and mass spectrometry is unique. A world without helium is unthinkable!
Helium may be of primordial or radiogenic origin. NASA’s Far Ultraviolet Spectroscopic Explorer (FUSE) satellite provided some evidence of helium gas left over from the big bang.
Uranium-238 and thorium-232 in the earth’s crust and mantle emit alpha particles which pick up two electrons and become radiogenic helium.
In the entire life span of the earth, only half of the uranium-238 atoms have decayed — yielding eight helium atoms in the process. Helium mixes with natural gas and will remain with it till it is extracted.
Helium that escapes into the atmosphere may be lost permanently. The atmospheric concentration of helium is very low at about 5.2 parts per million, too low to be harvested economically.
India currently imports virtually all its helium requirements of 10,000 normal cubic metres per month from the USA. Scientists at Variable Energy Cyclotron Centre (VECC), an institution under the Department of Atomic Energy, did some pioneering work in the field; they estimated that thermal spring gases at Bakereswar and Tantloi in West Bengal contain 1.4 and 1.26 vol % of helium respectively. Extracting and purifying helium from thermal springs and monazite sands are not commercially viable proposals.
The Ministry of Science and Technology had set up a special task force in early 2005 to identify India’s helium reserves.
Taking into account the strategic importance of helium, the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation set up a Rs 250 crore pilot plant at Kutralam in Tamil Nadu to produce 3,000 normal cubic metres per hour of helium from natural gas.
Poland, Russia, China. Algeria and Netherlands separate helium commercially from natural gas; helium is present in their oil fields at concentrations ranging from 0.18 and 0.9 vol percentage. In some US oilfields helium is present at 8 vol%.
The US government accumulated so far a reserve of 110 million standard cubic metres of this precious resource. In 1996, The US Congress decided to liquidate it by 2005 in such a way as to cause minimum market disruption.
A report from the National Academy of Sciences prepared on a direction from Congress assured that such a disposal of helium reserves will not have substantial adverse impact on US scientific, technical, biomedical, or national security interests.
The committee’s assurance on price stability through 2010 went wrong. The price of liquid helium is about $5 a litre; it rose more than 50% during the last year. The vagaries of the market place can hurt any dependent country
India’s decision to operate an indigenous plant to extract helium is strategically sound even if indigenous helium may turn out to be costlier than imported helium.

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

Radiation epidemiological studies near nuclear facilities

This article criticizes authors who bypass the conventional peer review process and get articles published in news media.Only vigilant journalists can arrest this lamentable trend

K.S.Parthasarathy





April 17, 2008

Radiation epidemiological studies near nuclear facilities

There is evidence that the cancer rates in population groups exposed to high doses of radiation will be relatively high. But the evidence at low doses is controversial. A few specialists believe that low dose radiation is beneficial to man (the Hindu, September 29, 2005)!

The limitations

Many specialists want to know whether very low levels of radiation caused by permitted radioactive releases from nuclear power plants, uranium mines, mills etc can cause excess cancers in man or not.

They do not appreciate the limitations of epidemiology. They believe that they can get a deterministic answer to a purely probabilistic question! That too using a statistically weak study.

“…. there is often a tendency to carry out epidemiological studies concerning the induction of cancer in radiation workers and members of the public which are not supported by a statistically valid data base or whose result are misinterpreted or misused”. Drs Joan M. Davies and Hazel Inskip eminent epidemiologists wrote in the foreword to their book on the topic. (Davies and Inskip, 1986)

A paper titled “Meta- analysis of standardized incidence and mortality rates of childhood leukaemia in proximity to nuclear facilities by Baker and Hoel in the European Journal of Cancer Care (2007) illustrates the dilemma...

The authors reviewed studies from one hundred and thirty six sites in nine countries.

Although the analysis showed consistently elevated rates of leukaemia, the authors of such papers found that radiation dose due to environmental discharges from the facilities are too low to account for the excess cases.

In several studies, the leukaemia death rates remained unchanged before and after start up even in regions with elevated rates!

Low excess risk

A study at 62 sites in USA, revealed leukaemia death rates to be higher before start up of the nuclear facility when compared with those after start up. Some authors found excess leukaemia in regions where nuclear facilities were expected to come!

In these studies, no one brought out one point; excess risk, if any, is extremely low and zero risk cannot be rules out.
Recently, a section of the media published reports on a study by the Indian Doctors for Peace and Development (IDPD) claiming adverse health effects in villages within the radius of 2.5 km from the uranium mine in Jadugoda. Their conclusions remain unsubstantiated. (Unsubstantiated till published in a peer reviewed journal).
Bypassing peer review

The authors presented their “study” at a conference on “Nuclear Weapons: The Final Pandemic Preventing Proliferation and Achieving Abolition” during October 3-4, 2007 at London.

Peer review

They successfully circumvented the traditional scientific peer review and publication process by using the media. Only vigilant journalists can arrest this lamentable trend. The full paper which the organisers of the London Conference sent me showed how "cherry picking" can masquerade as epidemiology. At the very outset, the authors stated thus: “We assumed that specific health problems related to uranium mining was affecting the indigenous people disproportionately in the study villages compared to the reference villages”.

Questionnaire

Then they searched for evidence to support the assumption! “A structured questionnaire was developed…. and was introduced on the heads of families of each house hold by a team of investigators.

The investigators, 34 in number, were men and women from the vicinity of Jadugoda”. Their areas were carpet –bombed with weird stories on uranium hazards for the past few years!

Brazen admission

“ Responses to some of the variables in few of the interview schedules were not found to be satisfactory and such responses were not considered for data analysis” the authors brazenly admitted to “cherry picking” of the data. None of the medical committees of qualified specialists, which surveyed Jadugoda villages found any disease which could be related to radiation exposure. Based on media reports and other documents an advocate filed a Public Interest Litigation (No 188 of 1999) in the Supreme Court of India seeking judicial intervention to have the necessary steps taken to safeguard the health of the population.
“In view of the affidavit filed by respondent No 3-Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission, that adequate steps have been taken to check and control the radiation arising out of uranium waste, we do not find any merit in the petition.
It is accordingly dismissed” the Supreme Court stated in its judgment on April 15, 2004.
Specialists know that it is impossible to get conclusive evidence from studies with a weak data base. However, such studies will continue often as public relations exercises! No one wants to call a spade a spade!
K.S.PARTHASARATHY
ksparth@gmail.com
[K.S.Parthasarathy is former Secretary Atomic Energy Regulatory Board]

Atomic bomb survivors, cancers

Recently,researchers found that there was statistically significant increase in the adult cancers among those exposed in utero to the atomic bomb radiation at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Over al, all studies conclude that ionizing radiation is a weak carcinogen
K.S.Parthasarathy



Date:03/04/2008 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/thehindu/seta/2008/04/03/stories/
2008040350041700.htm

Atomic bomb survivors, cancers

In utero exposure - cancer link was unknown

Study confirms that ionising radiation is a weak carcinogen

The study of atomic bomb survivors in Hiroshima and Nagasaki continues to provide very useful information on the effects of radiation on man.

Recently, Dr Dale Preston and co-workers examined the incidence of solid cancers in 2,452 atomic bomb survivors who got exposed to different radiation doses while they were in their mothers’ wombs.

They also evaluated the incidence of cancer in 15,388 persons who were younger than 6 years at the time of bombing. Both groups belonged to the age range of 12-55 for the period of 1955-1999.
Dose-related increases

They reported dose-related increases in the incidence of solid cancers in both groups (The Journal of the National Cancer Institute, March 19, 2008). Scientists knew that radiation exposure to foetus increases risks of childhood cancers and exposure in childhood is associated with increased risks of adult cancers. But until now they knew little about whether in utero radiation exposure leads to increased risks of adult cancers.
Heat rays

When U.S. aircraft dropped the bombs, Hiroshima and Nagasaki had an estimated population of 310,000 and 250,000 respectively.

About 90,000-140,000 people in Hiroshima and 60,000-80,000 in Nagasaki died immediately or within two to four months after bombing, resulting from collapse of houses caused by the blast and from heat rays and fires and radiation exposure.

In the 1950 Japanese national census, nearly 280,000 persons stated that they “had been exposed in the two cities” (The Hindu, September, 6, 2001)

One of the myths about the atomic bombing is that radiation released by atom bombs has been killing tens of thousands of persons in the two cities.

The deaths in areas of about a kilometre diameter are attributable to the effects of explosion and heat. Till 1990, RERF recorded 7,827 cancer deaths among the 86,572 persons who, the RERF included in its Life Span Study cohort.

Radiation exposure might have caused 421 excess cancer deaths (334 solid cancers + 87 leukaemias) among them (Radiation Research, 1996).

In 2007, researchers released the second general report on the incidence of solid cancers among the members of the Life Span Study. They based the analyses on 17,448 first primary cancers diagnosed from 1958 through 1998 among 105,427 cohort members with individual dose estimates, who were alive and not known to have cancer prior to 1958 (Radiation Research, July 2007). For all solid cancers as a group, scientists estimated that about 850 cancers were due to atomic bomb radiation exposure.

RERF, a bi-national Japan-U.S. scientific organization dedicated to studying the health effects of atomic bomb radiation took over the task of accumulating scientific results of significant versatility, quality, and quantity, through its studies of radiation effects on human health, with generous cooperation and support from A-bomb survivors and their family members (RERF release, March 5, 2008).

According to RERF, the majority of atomic bomb survivors are approaching their so-called cancer-prone years. “Cancer mortality associated with radiation exposure is expected to reach its peak during the next 10 years.

With great advances in genomic and other research, various powerful analytical techniques have become available.

Without a doubt, many important findings can only be produced at RERF by collecting, storing, and analyzing valuable clinical samples, such as cancer tissues, from the world’s largest prospective cohort for whom accurate and widely distributed dose information is available,” RERF noted.

“…These studies have important implications for risk assessment of low-dose medical and occupational exposures, since such exposures are expected to increase”, RERF argued.
Study’s confirmation

Overall, the study confirms that ionizing radiation is a carcinogen; also that it is a weak carcinogen (Scientists estimate that about 850 out of 17,448 solid cancers recorded during 1958 through 1998 may be due to radiation exposure).

The excess cancers may not have been noticed in the normal course.

K.S. PARTHASARATHY
FORMER SECRETARY, AERB

(ksparth@yahoo.co.uk)

© Copyright 2000 - 2008 The Hindu

Use uranium in nuke power

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


Use uranium in Nuke power

By K S Parthasarathy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Uranium:Mine It and Burn It in Nuclear power Plants

PTI Feature

24 March 2008

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

Uranium:Mine It and Burn It in Nuclear power Plants

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Coal-fired power plants take hits

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

K.S.Parthasarathy



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image gently, bring down CT dose to kids

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

K.S.Parthasarathy



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



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

FORMER SECRETARY, AERB
© Copyright 2000 - 2008 The Hindu