“No nukes for peace” – What it means?

This is a recent title appeared in one of the Indian widely circulated dailies, that too in the editorial page. There are many inconsistent and incorrect statements in the article. As per my learned and independent opinion, one should leave the national security and weapons mix-up to the Indian government to decide. I think that it should be a political decision keeping in mind the overall threat perception to the national security. With regard to nuclear disarmament, one can not fight countries having hundreds of Brammahstras with simple bow and arrows. One should remember the debacle and humiliation faced by India in the 1962 war with China.

In view of the Indian three stage nuclear power development program, the major part of the plutonium from the power reactor spent-fuel reprocessing needs to be deployed for the nuclear fuel manufacture for use in Fast Breeder Reactors. Use of plutonium in weapons is only one of the many applications.

The awareness amongst the public now is not that bad as to believe the author that nuclear power is a hazardous and accident prone energy source. One should discuss only with the numbers to prove the points. The statement: “Its radiation is an invisible but deadly poison” does not make any sense. Everybody knows that radiation is extensively used for medical applications to diagnose diseases and to treat cancer patients. In high exposure situations, everything is dangerous. Why only radiation?

Nuclear power has a bright future as a proved clean energy source. Japan, which suffered nuclear attacks in the past, is depending heavily on nuclear power. Everyone knows that coal-based power plants are highly polluting and one should be aware of the alarming global warming effects already felt and seen worldwide. Yes, the management of radioactive waste continues to be an emotional subject. It is proved beyond any doubt technically or otherwise that the waste can be safely managed. One can see that it is definitely managed far better and safely than the much more hazardous chemical and biological wastes.

With regard to the cost of power generation, if one adds up the cost of: controlling the deadly emissions from the coal-based plants, management of coal-ash and the coal transportation cost, the cost of power from the fusil fuel-based plants will be as much or more than the cost of nuclear power.

Yes, the percentage contribution of nuclear power is very small. With the Indo-US deal, the bottleneck of nuclear fuel shortage is likely to be solved. The existing reactors can run with full capacity, more and more of standardized 500/1000 MWe reactors can be quickly built / imported with Public Private Participation, supported of course by stringent regulations. To supplement nuclear power, let the government also work on war footing to develop the clean renewable sources such as wind, geothermal and solar power. There is an urgent need for arranging more and more awareness programs to sensitize the public with regards to the benefits and risks of radiation applications in a focused manner. The article shows that even the educated lot needs to be made aware of the facts so that such articles are not written out of ignorance.