UNSCIENTIFIC AND MISLEADING

Nuclear power is our gateway to a prosperous future' special essay authored by A. P. 3. Abdul
Kalam and S. P. Singh (The Hindu 6 November, 2011)

S. C. Tiwari, IONP Varanasi (Date 11 November, 2011)
PART ~ I
The essay is analyzed purely on the basis of its contents in this part, it is referred to as KS, the figure
Average Energy Per Capita as F1, the table Share of Nuclear Power in Total as T1 and the table
Comparison of a coal plant and a nuclear plant as T2. We also use NP for Nuclear Power and the cited
quotes by Q followed by a number.
A :- KS assume energy consumption as a development index. F1 shows UAE is most developed, yet
UAE does not figure in the top ranked 8 countries in T1. France is 6
th
in F1 but 2
nd
in T1 and tops in the
share of NP to total power. Such grave anomalies are not even pointed out in KS. Why?
KS state, 'most of the prosperous nations are extracting about 30-40 percent of power from NP'. It is
totally wrong as can be easily verified. Out of 8 developed nations listed in T1 only 2 have above 30
percent NP share since Korea is not amongst top 9 listed in F1. Averaging the percentage of top 8 in T1
it is about 31 percent nowhere near 40, and excluding France the average comes down to about 23
percent.
KS say NP does not fit into the goal of energy independence for Germany. Germany is ranked 8
th
in F1
but nowhere in T1. Norway, Australia and Singapore are ranked 3
rd
, 4
th
and 3
th
respectively in F1 but do
not figure in T1. KS do not explain these facts.
Conclusion: F1 and T1 are not presented in a correlated manner for making scientifically valid
inferences, and the main assertion of KS that Nuclear Power is related with developed status of a
nation and economic prosperity is unfounded and misleading.
B:- Environment and safety issues. KS state 'it adds to the risk of climate change, which is exhibited in
changing rainfall patterns, sea levels and temperatures' and continuing further 'leading to food
shortages, malnutrition, and disease alterations'. What is the scientific basis to link second part of the
statement as a consequence of the first one?
Note that even the climate change and global warming as a consequence of anthropogenic emission of
carbon dioxide has tenuous science and lot of politics. Authors deride critics of NP: 'If available facts
and scientific inquiry was given more weightage than mere conjectures and comic-bookish imagination
this argument will in all probability be proved a myth' (Q1). This statement is made in connection with
the perceived health hazard on inherited genetic effects of radiation exposure. Is this statement not
applicable to the dangers presented in T2 based on dubious conjectures and questionable IPCC and
WHO estimates?
There seems to be a fundamental error in the methodology for T2 and discussion in KS. Let us assume
pollution to be a major killer of human beings (with KS) then one must take notice of the reality that
almost all who die of it are poor. The statistical method using averages is grossly erroneous considering
the fact that poor are invariably forced to live in segregation where locally pollution level is extremely
high compared to the average and their capability to resist and fight pollution is relatively well below
that of those who consume maximum energy. Authors do not address this crucial issue and seem to
From::: Suresh Chandra Tiwari, Institute of Natural Philosophy
c/o 1 Kusum Kutir,Mahamanapuri,Varanasi 221005,India.
As communicated to :::: Navneet Kumar and Ramakrishna K, B-Mess, IISc.
dramatize it to seek justification for NP.
Internal contradiction is also very serious: In the section 'Analyzing the International scenario on
nuclear energy' KS cast aspersions on developed nations 'The economically developed world has a
well-trained habit of presenting their success in a distorted context to misguide emerging nations like
India, which are a potential challenge to their neo-age proxy-imperial economic subjugation' (Q2) and
assert 'What is needed for our India, we Indians have to decide. Hence, we and we alone will decide
what is the best needed action for our economic prosperity, based on our context and resource profile'
(Q3). Unfortunately to allay the fears of radiation hazards they rely on the same evil nations ABCC
and RERF reports thus contradicting themselves Q2. They do not educate the readers what prevented
AEC, India from taking up independent studies on such an important problem (from early 1960s till
date). Why should we Indians trust the authenticity of ABCC, RERF, IPCC, WHO reports?
Why should we trust KS who selectively castigate or hail the developed nations depending on
their agenda?
C:- Technology, bomb and NP. KS write 'The best of technological progress, while being the biggest
ally of mankind, does come at an incremental risk. The key is to learn and evolve to mitigate the risk,
rather than use the first incident as an excuse to disband science' (Q4). Has nuclear technology come
with incremental risk, and for the service of mankind? The answer could be found in this essay itself,
earlier in it they argue 'India is blessed with the rare and very important nuclear fuel of the future-
Thorium. We cannot afford to lose the opportunity to emerge as the energy capital of the world, which
coupled with the largest youth power, will be our answer to emerge as the leading economy of the
world' (Q3). In order to support their advocacy for Thorium based NP amongst other things they note
that 'much of the current civil nuclear applications are direct offshoots of the military nuclear
technologies' (Q6). Clearly nuclear technology arrived with unprecedented disastrous risk not an
incremental one. Why civil applications? Nuclear weapon technology needed huge funding with no
economic returns. Is it not logical to argue that perverted civil applications resulted to recover the
expenses and make profits via corporations? The very basis of nuclear technology has an ugly face-
destructive bombs and the distorted rear- so called peaceful and civil applications. At least in the case
of nuclear technology the assertion Q4 is patently wrong.
KS laud better nuclear emergency management in the mitigation of Fukushima disaster, the crucial
factor of US help and huge money spent on it is glossed-over. Following Q3 it would have been
appropriate to compare that in the Indian context, for example, Bhopal gas tragedy. Just as average
energy consumption of an American is 13 times than that of an Indian (KS), the life of an American is
hundreds of times more precious than that of an Indian. Would mitigation of nuclear disaster in India be
like that of Fukushima or Bhopal? We cannot escape the conclusion that NP plants in India have
catastrophic potential for poor people.
KS are right that bomb is designed to release 'a large amount of energy over a short period of time' (Q7)
and that NP plant is designed 'to deliver small amounts of energy in a sustainable manner over a far
larger time frame' (Q8). Why do they fail to recognize the profound significance of this observation on
energy and development debates?
D:- Development model. One of the authors Abdul Kalam after becoming the President of India
glamorized the dream-world of making India a developed nation. KS is concerned that opposition to
NP would derail this dream. Everyone is free to have one's vision of development. The one outlined in
KS is precisely the imitation of US model: consumerism. It contradicts their stand Q3. Is it not farcical
to apply this imported model to poor Indians and villages? For a scientific evaluation of this paradigm,
first we should be told about the rich-poor divide in the US and distribution of energy consumption to
common Americans relative to top few elites. Next the similar data should be made available in the
Indian context: how since Independence the energy scenario has evolved and in what proportion it has
been shared by privileged class versus common people, urban areas versus villages and rich versus
poor. KS do not present any such study, in fact it seems they do not consider it an issue worth
discussing.
Authors claim that 'It is a poor judgment and a deliberate act of spreading fear to compare a nuclear
bomb with a nuclear plant'. True. But is excessive energy consumption in short life of a person in a
consumerist society not like a bomb? In contrast ancient Indian wisdom teaches minimal consumption.
Should we not follow this remembering Q3 in KS?
Conclusion: The basic theme of this essay is copying US Development Model, the bulk of the
contents have internal inconsistencies and contradict the assertion Q3 making it vacuous. The
envisaged vision would lead, to borrow their phrases, to our gateway to neo-age proxy-imperial
economic subjugation.
PART-II
A. P. J. Abdul Kalam is an accomplished technologist and a celebrity, therefore the essay (KS) needs to
be put in the broad perspective in the light of mass protests against Kundankulam nuclear power project
(KNPP). Government of India (GOI), AEC and majority of upper middle class and affluent strongly
favor KNPP, and Kalam has come out publicly in its support. GOI has fully exploited Kalam's support
projecting it as a scientific argument as regards to the safety of the plant. Ironically KNPP is not even
once mentioned in the essay KS, and in none of the reported views since then that I have read any
scientific study and quantitative estimate of the safety parameters on KNPP has been offered. KS has
very little science and lot of social, economic and political dimensions on NP. Unpleasant questions
pertaining to integrity, track record and past experiences on S and T establishment are inevitable and
Kalam has much to answer on them.
Impressed by the progress in industrialized nations, more than 70 years ago, M. N. Saha in 1939 argued
that bringing electric power supply at the level of Europe, America and Japan would solve the problems
of poverty and unemployment in India. Later on he was very critical of the secrecy and huge funding
involving nuclear technology in India. It is well known that since the time of Bhabha AEC has never
delivered the promises to the nation. Competing with technologically advanced nations (TAN) India
has a track record of being a perpetual laggard. Today even for wind energy and solar energy India
looks to the Western companies and imported technology. Dream of world energy capital (Q3) is
rhetorical and politically motivated if past experiences are any guide. Note that the youth power, today,
in the guise of knowledge economy, has been colonized by outsourcing industry and robbing this young
generation of the youthful life of creativity and enjoyment. Is it development? Where is accountability
of S and T establishment? Why does GOI buckle under pressure from foreign nuclear industries to
acquire this technology? What is S and T Indian expertise in this? If after so many years and so much
funding AEC cannot build conventional nuclear reactors why would the story be any different for
Thorium based NP?
It is notable that TAN are constructing very few NP plants. Olkiluoto-3 in Finland is not yet complete
and has crossed the capital cost of USD 4300 per kW. US nuclear companies are in dire need of
markets, political leadership in India has questionable integrity painting rosy picture for the future of
NP. In this scenario pliable scientists are willing to give credence to GOI view that NP is the cleanest
and the best option for energy needs in India. Instead of enlightening people on this serious and
controversial issue Kalam has sided with GOI and has been popularizing unscientific and catchy
slogans. Why?
Many things in KS could be questioned but would be distracting the main issue. Nevertheless I
consider two points. First the achievement of detecting water in Chandrayan mission. Of what
significance and at what cost? An insignificant achievement by S and T community in India is
invariably projected magnified thousands of times to the public, and Kalam follows this tradition.
Second point concerns rather mischievous logic in KS 'the nuclear opposition factions must first direct
their efforts at Washington and Moscow, the owners of 90 per cent of the world's nuclear warheads'. It
is typical of the tactics that one adopts when one runs out of valid reasoning. In any case, the authors
subsequently admit US will not disband nuclear arsenal. Why a developed nation behave in such an
inhuman way? Is the notion of developed nation itself not seriously flawed? Why should we dream of
becoming demonic like that? I think consumerism after a certain level instead of consuming energy
consumes human blood of poor world over. Today India's pride is in the so called world class things:
Grand Prix at Rs. 2000 crore in NOIDA, sophisticated hospitals, airports etc. It has become possible
because the blood of farmers is sucked and poor are condemned to live in worst possible conditions, it
is they who are paying the price for the dreams of few elites. Please see p. 31 in [4| on the killing
disease encephalitis in Gorakhpur region of UP in a nation with multitude of world class hospitals.
I am firmly convinced that cow-based development- a great development model pioneered in
India would ensure welfare to all and least damage to the nature. Action (energy multiplied by
time) and entropy- modern scientific concepts must replace obsession with energy to define
development. I would welcome questions/comments from the readers.
References
[1| Beyond Smoke and Mirrors- Climate change and energy in the 21
st
century by B. Richter, C. U. P.
2010. Author makes a case for nuclear power-please read it with critical mind.
[2| The Atomic Age published by Simon and Schuster 1963. It contains 63 essays by scientists and
academics. Amongst them Born, Oppenheimer, Einstein, Bethe, Russell, Goudsmit and Teller.
[3| Lords of poverty by G. Hancock Common Courage Press, 1999.
[4| Higher Education in India: Experiences and Insights by S. C. Tiwari self-published 2010. This book
comprises of three parts. Part-III Science, Technology and Society reprints more than a dozen
articles/notes published in Current Science.
[3| Role of technology and relevance of self reliance by S. C. Tiwari, Current Science vol. 66 p. 10,
1994.