Alarmism, Jadugoda and India’s Nuclear Programme
I’m a huge fan of Scroll.in- it’s a publication that’s almost uniformly excellent. Kumar Sundaram’s writings however, aren’t.
Now, Kumar Sundaram is apparently a ‘researcher’ for the ‘Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace’, although his writings betray an almost complete lack of research concerning nuclear energy itself and doesn’t shy away from genuinely tinfoil hat level conspiracy peddling. Much like other ‘researchers’ of his kind, he also loves quoting the odd renegade scientist in particularly egregious examples of confirmation bias. And of course, what would an alarmist be without exaggeration? From what I get reading his articles and his widely shared facebook posts, every nuclear power plant is a Chernobyl waiting to happen.
I’d pretty much say that he has all the intellectual rigour of Vandana Shiva, but I’m also certain that in his world, that’s actually a compliment.
So why am I suddenly picking on a conspiracy-peddling intellectual hack of all people? Firstly because he, and not nuclear scientists, happens to be the go-to source for nuclear energy analysis among our activist communities. And the second is that in between his Chicken Little-esque rants, he sometimes raises uncomfortable questions that do deserve attention and thought, and the denial of which essentially lends credence to his status as an expert on something he seems to know nothing about.
The thing is, nuclear energy is almost surely going to be a part of our energy economy, as more countries start cutting down on fossil fuels in a bid to fight climate change, and yes, much like any other form of technology, nuclear energy comes with its own risks. That said, if you’re confusing Fukushima for Chernobyl, you haven’t done your homework.
However the scientific and technology community has been far too dismissive of the more valid criticisms of certain aspects India’s nuclear programme as being emblematic of Luddites than it really should be, and this off-hand dismissal lends credence to the idea that scientists and engineers are part of a greater conspiracy. The problem here is that as far as the Indian Nuclear Programme is concerned, we see a lot of nationalist chest-thumping, but very little public outreach. Certain aspects are unnecessarily non-transparent and furthermore, there seems to be outright denial of certain more troubling areas that have little to do with nuclear energy itself, but makes for an excellent strawman that is hard to counter when not addressed directly.
There is certainly no reason as to why the Uranium Corporation of India cannot be transparent about how the mines at Jadugoda and Tumalapalle are run. I’m not saying for certain that the reported health issues in themselves are most definitely thanks to a sustained exposure to radioactive material, there is certainly a strong case for investigating it to ameliorate public health and environmental concerns. And if it is, then the Government should be compensating those affected by it and be enforcing stronger regulations. And there’s unfortunately, very good reason for people to suspect the worst here- there’s very little concern for those involved in mining or affected by mining in general. This disdain isn’t exclusive to uranium mines, a coal miner in India dies every 10 days according to the Financial Express.
Much of the investigative reports do hint at contamination, long term exposure as well as truly horrendous examples of oversight such as not giving miners proper equipment or employing contractual labour in hazardous environments, and the Government’s attitude towards these issues has been roughly in line with the way it treats any other violations of labour rights or environmental risks- with utmost disregard and disdain.
Does this mean India’s nuclear programme must be scrapped at once as Sundaram keeps trying to hint at? Obviously not. But it does mean that regulations surrounding mining activities need to be made stronger and there has to be more oversight than there is at present. But of course, this means that Government-run corporations responsible for mining need to be more transparent with how they’re going about things instead of simply waving aside very valid concerns.
The PR issue specifically with regards to uranium, which isn’t true for coal is that it is far easier to engage in hysterical campaigns against nuclear energy by invoking Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Chernobyl and the numerous devastating nuclear weapons tests that have been conducted across the globe, and as the Government turns a blind eye towards these issues, it lends credibility to ideas that are complete bullshit, primarily because they’re the only people even talking about the more problematic aspects.
The second issue here is that in my experience, the Government has done way too little in terms of public education concerning the need for nuclear energy and its comparison vis-a-vis conventional fossil fuel based energy in the fight against climate change, once again lending credence in the absence of information, to those who pretend Kudankulam and Jaitapur are Chernobyls waiting to happen. Such fear-mongering often does have very negative effects, for instance, when Mamata Banerjee refused the construction of a nuclear reactor at Haripur(which would have meant that much of the State’s electricity wouldn’t come from coal) or in an even more ludicrous display of public ignorance, the shutting down of the Indian Neutrino Observatory project. But can we simply blame those who wouldn’t know any better for opposing such projects? Not really, especially when public outreach is as bad as it is today.
Would public outreach, transparency and accountability necessarily shut up the likes of Vandana Shiva and Kumar Sundaram? Not really. They have their heads a little too far inside their redpilling discourses, and conceding the fact that they might be wrong about a lot of things would be near suicidal. However, addressing the instances where they do have a point would go a long way in informing the public about an energy source that is perhaps unnecessarily controversial.
There really is no reason why we can’t have a transparent and publicly accountable nuclear energy programme. But the less transparent and accountable it is, the more credible those calling for a halt to nuclear energy seem.
