[sacw] S A A N Post | 13 Sept. 00

[Harsh Kapoor]

////////////////////////////////
South Asians Against Nukes Post
13 September 2000
////////////////////////////////

#1. The Concorde and the nuclear reactor=20
#2. Court to expose India's dirty nuclear secrets
#3. USA: Las Vegas Declared Nuclear-free Zone

-----------------------------------------

#1.

Himal (Nepal)
September 2000

THE CONCORDE AND THE NUCLEAR REACTOR=20

If you construct something foolproof, there will always be a fool greater
than the proof.
=20=20

=97Edward Teller, speaking at the Nuclear Energy Forum, San Luis, Obispo,
California, 17 October 1975.
=20=20
by M.V. Ramana
=20=20
On 25 July 2000, an Air France Concorde bound for New York crashed in
flames shortly after takeoff from Charles de Gaulle Airport outside Paris
killing all its passengers. Officials were quick to point out that the
crash was the first of a Concorde since the supersonic plane went into
commercial operation in 1976. But the Concorde has been flown much less
than, say, the Boeing 747. Further, there have been quite a few troubles
with the Concorde in the past. For example, between 1979 and 1981, on four
separate occasions, tyres blew out as the planes were taking off. Due to
the high stresses from supersonic flight, on several occasions sections of
the tail have fallen off. Over the last 15 years, there have been at least
four emer-
gency landings.
=20=20
A week prior to that, on 17 July, a Boeing 737 belonging to Alliance Air
crashed in flames into an apartment block near Patna airport. Though
tragic, this crash doesn=92t come as a big surprise given the poor record o=
f
air safety India has. In the 1990s alone, there were at least three major
civilian air crashes. India=92s Comptroller and Auditor General reported in
1997 that there had been 187 accidents and 2729 incidents involving Indian
Air Force (IAF) aircraft between April 1991 and March 1997, resulting in
the loss of 147 airplanes and 63 pilots.
=20
Such aircraft accidents have obviously prompted increased attention to
safety, leading to design improvements and safety features. Nevertheless,
accidents have continued. In studying the safety of airplanes and other
hazardous technologies, several sociologists and organisation theorists
have come to a pessimistic conclusion: serious accidents are inevitable
with complex, high-technology systems.
=20
Charles Perrow of Yale University, who coined the term "normal accidents"
to describe such accidents, identifies two structural features of many
hazardous technologies=97"interactive complexity" and "tight coupling"=97wh=
ich
make them highly accident-prone regardless of the intent of their
operators. According to Perrow, "complex interactions are those of
unfamiliar sequences, or unplanned and unexpected consequences, and either
not visible or not immediately comprehensible". Tight coupling means that
"there is no slack or buffer or give between two items; what happens in one
directly affects what happens in the other".
=20
In addition to these structural factors, normal accident theorists also
point to conflicting interests both within organisations and between
organisations and the broader political community, which make accidents
more probable while making it unlikely that organisations will learn the
appropriate lessons from accidents.
=20
Normal accident theory has been put to severe tests and has generally been
successful. Scott Sagan of Stanford University, in an important and
wide-ranging study of nuclear weapon systems in the United States,
identified a number of close calls, and concluded that while on any given
day, the risk of a serious nuclear weapons accident may be low, in the long
run, such an accident is extremely likely.
=20
Analysing the explosion of the Challenger space shuttle in January 1986,
Diane Vaughan of Boston College pointed out that while the disaster was the
result of a mistake, what is important to remember is not that individuals
in organisations make mistakes, but that mistakes themselves are "socially
organised and systematically produced". The origins of the accident "were
in routine and taken-for-granted aspects of organisational life that
created a way of seeing that was simultaneously a way of not seeing".
=20
Perhaps the best illustration of a hazardous technology that displays the
structural and political problems that normal accident theorists point to
is the nuclear reactor. The technology is highly complex, with different
components interacting in non-linear, unfamiliar ways. The time scales
involved in different processes are very short; operations can quickly spin
out of control. Compounding the problem is the secrecy and control
maintained by the institutions that construct and operate these reactors.
=20
Even so, the nuclear establishments of the world have persisted in claiming
that the probability of reactor accidents is very low. South Asia=92s
authorities are no exception. Last year following the Tokaimura accident in
Japan, India=92s Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) chairman claimed: "There is
no possibility of any nuclear accident in
the near or distant future in India. We have 150 reactor years of safe
operation."
=20
It is worth contrasting this with earlier similar pronouncements. Just
three years before the Chernobyl accident, writing in the Bulletin of the
International Atomic Energy Agency (Vol. 25, June 1983), the head of IAEA=
=92s
safety division claimed: "The design feature of having more than 1000
individual primary circuits increases the safety of the reactor system=97a
serious loss of coolant accident is practically impossible=85the safety of
nuclear power plants in the Soviet Union is assured by a very wide spectrum
of measures=85" But on 26 April 1986, Unit 4 of the Chernobyl reactor went
critical and exploded, releasing an immense amount of radioactivity into
the atmosphere. Practically, every country in the northern hemisphere
received some radioactive fallout. Between 100,000 and 150,000 hectares of
agricultural land had to be abandoned. Estimates of worldwide deaths
resulting from the radioactive contamination vary from a few hundreds to
tens of thousands.
=20
What makes the assurance offered by the Indian AEC chairman even more
absurd is that at the time of the Chernobyl accident, the Soviet Union had
over 1000 reactor years of experience. The confidence is also misplaced
because there have been several accidents over the course of India=92s
nuclear history=97examples include the fire at Narora, multiple heavy water
leaks at Kalpakkam, the collapse of the containment at Kaiga and flooding
of the pumps at Kakrapar. It was only sheer luck that none of these
resulted in major catastrophes.
=20
With secrecy written into its mandate through the 1962 Atomic Energy Act,
the Indian Department of Atomic Energy has been able to hide unpleasant
facts from public scrutiny to a greater extent than most countries. In
part, the secrecy reflects the close connection
between nuclear power production and nuclear weapons development.
But it also serves to cover acci- dents, safety violations and poor
performance.
=20
India is not alone in continuing the expansion of nuclear power even in the
face of these risks. In South Asia, Pakistan is also following the same
path. And Bangladesh has recently announced its intention to start a
nuclear power programme.
=20
In Pakistan, the one-power reactor that has been in operation near Karachi
has had a poor track record. During the period 1972-97, on an average, the
plant has been shut down for about 55 days each year due to equipment
failure or "human error". More dangerous is the reactor coming up at Chashm=
a.
=20
Pakistani physicists Zia Mian and A.H. Nayyar identify three concerns with
the Chashma reactor. First, Chashma is located in a seismically-active
zone. Second, the reactor is a replica of the Chinese Qinshan reactor that
suffered an accident in 1998. Third, this is the first time that China is
indigenously manufacturing various reactor components. Pakistan, in other
words, will be the guinea pig for this design and its components. Mian and
Nayyar estimate that given the high population density of South Asia, an
accident would cause somewhere between 5,000 and 33,000 deaths. Efforts to
delay, if not prevent the start-up of Chashma have so far not succeeded.
=20
Nuclear reactor designs have, of course, been modified to incorporate
lessons from the Chernobyl accident, and earlier accidents. Nevertheless,
no reactor, not even the so-called "inherently safe" reactor, is wholly
risk free. A 1990 study by the Union of Concerned Scientists concluded: "As
a general proposition, there is nothing =91inherently=92 safe about a react=
or.
Regardless of the attention to design, construction, operation, and
management of nuclear reactors, there is always something that could be
done (or not done) to render the reactor dangerous. The degree to which
this is true varies from design to design, but we believe that our general
conclusion is correct."
=20
The risk of accidents does not necessarily mean that we should abandon a
technology but it should certainly cause concern and lead to the
exploration of safer alternatives. Prior to this, however, is the
requirement that the pursuit of nuclear power, or any other hazardous
technology, should be done democratically with the informed consent of the
potentially affected populations. The first step towards a democratic
debate is an honest assessment of the risks involved. Unfortunately, with
nuclear establishments, as with the purveyors of other hazardous
technologies, that step seems the hardest.
=20=20
________

#2.

The Independent (UK)
12 September 2000

COURT TO EXPOSE INDIA'S DIRTY NUCLEAR SECRETS=20=20

By Peter Popham in Delhi=20=20

12 September 2000=20

India's supreme court has agreed to hear a public interest suit which
accuses the nuclear industry of callous disregard for the health and
well-being of tens of thousands of people living close to the nation's only
working uranium mine.=20

The dirty secret of India's nuclear industry =96 a hidden scandal which has
been the ruin of thousands of lives and the cause of serious birth defects
=96 could thus at last be dragged into the light of day. For the first time
an industry which has blighted the lives of a large tribal community and
devastated their environment will be subjected to public scrutiny.=20

The uranium discovered up to 2,000ft under the rice paddies and rolling
pasture of Jaduguda in the far south-east of the northern state of Bihar is
of such low quality that in most countries no one would bother digging it
up. But with its post-colonial obsession with self-sufficiency, India has
been mining uranium here for 30 years. Today the refined product is sent to
all 10 of the country's pressurised heavy water reactors.=20

However, according to the suit which the supreme court agreed to consider
over the weekend, the Uranium Corporation of India Limited (UCIL) has
failed to safeguard the welfare of the people living nearby. A report filed
to the court describes the "miserable and deplorable" condition of more
than 50,000 people who live within 10km of the mines.=20

The court's decision is a long-awaited breakthrough for the Adivasis (the
native tribal people) of Jaduguda, along with Xavier Dias and his
colleagues in the Jharkhandi Organisation Against Radiation who have been
fighting to bring attention to the problem. All the people who have
suffered from the mining, its by-products and its side-effects are Adivasis=
.=20

The whole mining process has had a disastrous impact on the community, from
the exposure to radiation of miners sent 2,000ft underground without safety
equipment, to the 300,000 tons of waste rock dumped in the vicinity every
year. But the critical factor is the presence of three "tailings dams"
occupying more than 100 acres, where the "fine tailings" =96 or waste from
the mines =96 is dumped. This waste contains not only uranium but also othe=
r
toxic metals such as lead, zinc and arsenic. The tailings dam structures
are, in some places, no more than 30 metres from the nearest village houses=
.=20

As one scientist recently wrote: "During the dry season the dams run dry
and the wind picks up the loose tailings and blows them around. In the
monsoon rains the dams overflow into the river. People have also used the
dams to graze livestock and play soccer."=20

And uranium waste is not the only hazardous substance blowing around
Jaduguda. When local people began to find syringes and other types of
hospital waste buried in the tailings, they realised that medical radiation
waste from an unknown number of sources was also being brought to the
area's dams for dumping. In the words of one expert, the dams have become
"the nuclear waste dump for the entire country".=20

But official secrecy surrounding nuclear issues in the country, coupled
with widespread public apathy about the fate of Adivasis, has made Jaduguda
the national scandal no one knows about.=20

Long exposure to the low-level radiation has caused many different types of
damage to the health of the local people. A recent study reported that 30
per cent of women had fertility problems of some sort. Skin diseases,
cancers, tuberculosis and nervous system disorders were among the other
problems discovered in large numbers.=20

Most upsetting are the numerous deformed children in the area: children
with skeletal distortions, missing eyes or toes, with fused fingers or
limbs too weak to support them.=20

A former chairman of UCIL has stated that "there is no radiation or any
related health problem" in the area. For the first time such bland
assertions may soon be publicly tested.=20=20

=A9 2000 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd.=20

_____

#3.

PRESS RELEASE CONTACT: Susi Snyder
September 6, 2000 702-647-3095

LAS VEGAS DECLARED NUCLEAR-FREE ZONE

This morning the Mayor and City Council of Las Vegas passed resolution
R-85-2000, declaring Las Vegas a Nuclear Free Zone. This resolution
opposes legislation that would allow the transportation, storage or
production of spent nuclear fuel, high-level nuclear waste, and low-level
radioactive waste within the City of Las Vegas. The resolution also
supports the on site storage of spent nuclear fuel, a shift in federal
funding for nuclear waste disposal studies, and the research and use of
alternative renewable energy sources.

=93The majority of the people of Las Vegas are against radioactive waste
being shipped through the city,=94 said Susi Snyder, =93a Nuclear-Free Las
Vegas is a great step towards a Nuclear-Free Great Basin.=93=20=20

The resolution passed this morning was proposed at a meeting between Mayor
Goodman, the Shundahai Network, Citizens Nuclear Information Committee and
Citizen Alert in July.=20=20=20

=93We hope that all other counties and cities within Nevada will be inspir=
ed
to pass their own nuclear free zone resolutions, =93 said Reinard Knutsen,
=93This will send a strong signal to Washington that Nevada is not the
dumping ground for the nuclear industry.=94 Reno, Sparks and Henderson hav=
e
also declared themselves to be Nuclear-Free Zones.

The passage of this resolution is in great timing for Nevada Is Not A
Wasteland Day, September 30th, (12-8pm, Morrell Park in Henderson), and the
Nuclear Free Great Basin Gathering, October 6-9th, at Peace Camp, Newe
Sogobia (Mercury exit, US 95).

-30-

RESOLUTION TO DESIGNATE LAS VEGAS A NUCLEAR-FREE ZONE
Adopted Unanimously by Las Vegas City Council Sept 6th, 2000

WHEREAS, Congress has designated Yucca Mountain, Nevada, the only site to
be studied for a High-level nuclear waste repository; and=20

WHEREAS, the proposed Yucca Mountain site should be disqualified from
consideration due to scientifically proven geologic and technical factors;
and=20

WHEREAS, billions of taxpayer dollars have already been spent on the Yucca
Mountain Project; and

WHEREAS, The government of the State of Nevada and the City of Las Vegas
are opposed to Yucca Mountain; and

WHEREAS, the State of Nevada has already made countless sacrifices for the
nation's nuclear programs; and

WHEREAS, the Nevada Test Site is currently used by the Department of
Energy as a site for the final disposal of low level radioactive waste from
the cleanup of the Department of Energy's weapons complex; and

WHEREAS, high level nuclear waste as well as some low level nuclear waste
is extremely dangerous, containing long-lived radioactive isotopes; and=20

WHEREAS, this high level nuclear waste would consist of irradiated nuclear
fuel rods and other radioactive waste; and

WHEREAS, legislation is introduced each year and is currently being
debated which, if adopted by Congress and signed into law by the President
of the United States, will allow for the transport of radioactive waste
through the City of Las Vegas and other towns in Nevada; and=20

WHEREAS, this legislation would create an above ground interim storage
facility for high level nuclear waste at the Nevada Test Site; and=20

WHEREAS, this legislation would begin the largest nuclear waste
transportation campaign in history, possibly endangering residents in 43
states, thousands of towns and cities; and

WHEREAS, the Department of Energy predicts that there will be nuclear
waste accidents occurring during this transportation campaign; and

WHEREAS, lives, health, and properties of Las Vegas residents, living and
working along transportation routes will be unnecessarily endangered by
accidents or incidents; and

WHEREAS, the City of Las Vegas will have limited funding for training of
emergency response personnel and for purchase of necessary equipment to
cope with a radiological emergency; and

WHEREAS, the City of Las Vegas does not have the independent resources
required to effectively cope with a radiological disaster that could occur
as a result of radioactive waste transported through Las Vegas; and=20

WHEREAS, tourism has long been the life-blood of Nevada's economy, with
over half of the estate's economic activity resulting directly or
indirectly from tourism related expenditures; and=20

WHEREAS, the transportation of nuclear waste through Las Vegas would
diminish the safe and attractive image the city now conveys, poses a
possible health risk to potential visitors and would damage the city and
state's economy; and

WHEREAS, the production of both high- and low- level waste continues,
transportation to either an interim or permanent repository does nothing to
solve the nuclear waste problem in our country; and=20

WHEREAS, the city of Las Vegas supports basing nuclear waste disposal
decisions that will impact future generations on sound science, long term
safety considerations and a thorough evaluation of all possible options; an=
d=20

WHEREAS, at or near reactor above-ground monitored retrievable dry cask
storage technology can be used to safely and economically store high-level
radioactive wastes on site for at least 100 years;=20

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and Council of the City Of Las
Vegas as follows:

SECTION 1: That the Mayor and City Council of Las Vegas oppose all
legislation that would require or allow transportation of all radioactive
waste near or through the City of Las Vegas;

SECTION 2: That the Mayor and City Council of Las Vegas support at reactor,
on-site storage of high-level nuclear waste and a shift in funding to find
a scientifically defensible and publicly acceptable method of disposal;

SECTION 3: That the Mayor and City Council of Las Vegas support the
research and use of alternative renewable energy sources;

SECTION 4: That radioactive waste and nuclear waste, as referred to in
this Resolution, is principally intended to include fuel materials utilized
in nuclear power production. This Resolution does not relate to
radioactive materials used, in the City of Las Vegas, for medical
applications, industrial radiography and personal purposes such as time
pieces or smoke detectors;=20

SECTION 5: That in opposition to legislation that would allow the
transportation, storage or production of spent nuclear fuel, high-level
nuclear waste, and low-level radioactive waste within the City of Las
Vegas, the mayor and City Council of Las Vegas designate the City of Las
Vegas as a Nuclear Free Zone.