There is nothing wrong in reviewing the projects as it is rightly said ' Prevention is better than cure'. Reviewing does not mean that the advancement in the new projects should be stopped. Atomic power projects are not a small projects like laying down canals, roads etc. where there are chances of repair with less investment but a small damage in the atomic power plants will take a lot of investment and more than that it effects the environment which in turn effects the living beings on a whole. So, reviewing of hazardous atomic projects is very essential.
By
Atluri Manmohan, Executive Business Promotions, Globarena Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
| 03 26 2011 18:01:31 +0000
Dear Mr.Kaliyamoorthy your points placed here is ok, but the question is the intensive magnitude of life risk, disastrous, and hazardous to the human race in unlimited and uncontrollable effect/impact. The nuclear power projects are being sold to India by other countries who make money.In the name of industrialization and modernizing our deffence systems including to compete with nuclear power countries, we are forced to promote nuclear power projects. The military can be inducted with nuclear weapons from the existing sources which are sufficient but not advisable in promoting new NPP. Knowing the negative bad consequences why we should choose to do so. The electricity generated from the nuclear power plants is very negligible to meet the industrial requirements, but involves heavy expenditure and investments which can be deployed in other energy generation to meet our needs. Now our government is also talking and taking steps to develop green energy that should be promoted in large scale to meet our necessity and as a result the rural areas will also get uplifted with more employment opportunities. Thanks Mr.Kaliamoorthy.
By
NATTERAJA R. ARIKRISHNAN, GM-Projects, Bentec Electricals & Electronics Pvt. Ltd
| 03 26 2011 17:24:11 +0000
Yes, we should review since India is such a populous country and any nuclear disaster in India could lead to many more deaths. By review, I don't mean that all projects should be scrapped but only that better and extra safeguards should be put in after factoring the lessons learned from Japan. After all, learning from disaster and improving responses should be the way to making progress in handling natural disasters.
By
Shahnawaz Islam, PR & Media Relations Manager, National Institute of Smart Governance
| 03 24 2011 06:49:15 +0000
If you will use the knife for cutting the vegetables it does not mean it can not cut your finger. however if you want to eat food with proper cutting and making. you must have the chance to cut your finger. danger is a part of life. and we are also making our atmosphere unhealthy.
By
Nitin Mehra, Software Developer, ROBOMAN MICROSYSTEMS
| 03 23 2011 11:31:33 +0000
|
One of the reasons i support this is because of the low cost of atomic power vs conventional sources. We should learn from the japan disaster to further tighten and safegaurd our reactors rather than be afraid and cancel such projects. In a country with a rising population like ours, atomic power is the only solution to the increasing power needs.
By
Jaygopal Raghavan, Marketing Manager, Landmark Group
| 05 03 2011 07:36:28 +0000
Mr. N.Arikrishnan, In Japan, how many death were reported due to Radiation. Most of the death occurred were due to Tsunami & Earthquake. How many were reported Radiation Sickness? . As far as My knowledge goes are a few. The hue and cry made there, are mainly to create people aware of Radiation & to take appropriate Safety in their activity. Moreover, lot many commotion will be there in any National calamity. Buying of technology is a prime concern, then, unfortunately we are not the one to decide. The policy decisions are taken at Ministerial level with Experts consultation and Opinions. When mobilizing any Public Opinion, You and I, have the rights to express our views. But, I believe, we passed that stage also. I give the threshold values of radiation to understand (click for Q & A) it in full perspective.
By
KALIYAMOORTHY , Oil & Gas Area Coordinator, Undisclosed
| 03 27 2011 09:08:22 +0000
Mr. N .Arikrishnan, You said your views are not pessimistic but concern for societal risk I do agree. But, when you live without doing anything, the nature-fury will never stop the devastation what it can produce or just because , the technology is not used the amount of loss is going to reduce. Let us be pragmatic. If we are worried so much, - we will not use so much Carcinogenic material in industry(producing Cancer),
- we will not be using sub-marine/ships,
- we will not be producing so much arms & armaments etc.,
- we will not be using CT SCAN etc(one exposure is equal to a guy standing at 30 km distance in japan )
- we will not be using so much technical equipment with laser etc in explorations,
- We will be anymore using X-ray for testing & inspection,
- We will not be testing atom bomb(radiation,heat,smoke etc)
because the death is heavy(also recurrence). France has largest amount of NPP followed by Latuvania etc. Have they ever worried so much. Are they not living on this Earth?. When we are capable of using so much that is too inimical to us, to benefit us. We need not to use these technology for our betterment is quixotical.
Risk analysis & Cost Benefit Analysis is a twin in any technological inventions. When the Risk is at acceptable limit, with minimum cost benefit only then, Industrialist advocates. Renewal Energy is good, I do not oppose it. But, it is unable to meet the Heavy Industrial requirements. Moreover, the energy from Tidal, Wind, Solar etc are all in the Offing.
By
KALIYAMOORTHY , Oil & Gas Area Coordinator, Undisclosed
| 03 26 2011 12:56:30 +0000
When natural calamity comes everything goes out null & void. No escape to nature-fury. Generally, in Industry, the Risks are quantitatively measured and Layer of Protection is offered to reduce the Risk level. Moreover, to encounter any emergency arising out of mal-function, Emergency rescue & preparation is planned to mitigate it. In Japan, there were three Layer of Protection planned. But, due to Tsunami & Earth quake, it all failed. Man only, adeptly trying to use Nature for his comfort but, can not win it. This is what happened in Japan. People learn lesson from Major accidents and correct his knowledge to overcome it in the near-future. In Gudankulam, Tamilnadu, NPP, in addition to, the three protection provided, the Plant has ," a provision to bury the SOURCE material underground" by remote operation. Moreover, it is built at, if I am correct , at 50 m Height to meet Tsunami waves. The Generators are placed, I think, in double walled cell at 25 m height. Safety protection is to be improved and continuously to monitored to see its effectiveness.
By
KALIYAMOORTHY , Oil & Gas Area Coordinator, Undisclosed
| 03 23 2011 09:45:04 +0000
When natural calamity comes everything goes out null & void. No escape to nature-fury. Generally, in Industry, the Risks are quantitatively measured and Layer of Protection is offered to reduce the Risk level. Moreover, to encounter any emergency arising out of mal-function, Emergency rescue & preparation is planned to mitigate it. In Japan, there were three Layer of Protection planned. But, due to Tsunami & Earth quake, it all failed. Man only, adeptly trying to use Nature for his comfort but, can not win it. This is what happened in Japan. People learn lesson from Major accidents and correct his knowledge to overcome it in the near-future. In Gudankulam, Tamilnadu, NPP, in addition to, the three protection provided, the Plant has ," a provision to bury the SOURCE material underground" by remote operation. Moreover, it is built at, if I am correct , at 50 m Height to meet Tsunami waves. The Generators are placed, I think, in double walled cell at 25 m height. Safety protection is to be improved and continuously to monitored to see its effectiveness.
By
KALIYAMOORTHY , Oil & Gas Area Coordinator, Undisclosed
| 03 23 2011 09:26:30 +0000
|
