Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby John Snow » 13 Jul 2008 23:35

Narayanan, Narayanan, Narayanan, walking in the clouds and playing base guitar.... (narada of kaliyuga)

Indian civilian nuke reactor gets attacked while TSP and Iranian military nukes go scott free, what is this fear piskology leading us to? 123?

Imagine the number of civilian deaths even if dumb indians cant wage a fight, and still Indian civilian nuke attack, by alien greens?

Man I say lets import electric cities from off shore generators in USS nuke submarines all around our peninsula

darshan
BRFite
Posts: 377
Joined: 28 Jan 2008 04:16

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby darshan » 13 Jul 2008 23:42

Gerard, there are many instances where GoI have failed indian public security wise and that is why I call reactors ticking time bombs. When you have too many of them which I doubt GoI would have just because they have this important insight, it really becomes hard to enforce security. Do not forget with this deal comes private companies. All it takes is one minor oversight. And please do not think that I did not think that GoI would not have thought about this. However, IMVHO, GoI is not capable of providing adequate security blanket to Indian public. For example, do you want me to just totally ignore that current GoI did not do much to handle maoist and bangladeshi troublemakers? Do you want me to forget about Kargil? or 1962 war? Or jaipur blast? I am pretty sure GoI had insights on those too but they happened.

All I am saying is that this deal is nothing but garbage if GoI signing it cannot guarantee that any mischief towards Indians would be dealt with harshly. GoI cannot handle the current problems properly and is looking to create even more. After the deal is signed, I would expect pressure to go up to build more reactors and I do think that security apparatus in India will change with it. And again I am sure that GoI would have thought about it but after all money is god and god is money.
Last edited by darshan on 13 Jul 2008 23:52, edited 1 time in total.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7533
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Gerard » 13 Jul 2008 23:47

Reactors are not nuclear weapons and cannot be turned into such.

And in their decades of operating almost 2 dozen reactors, the DAE has ensured safety and security.

enqyoob
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 20:25

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby enqyoob » 13 Jul 2008 23:49

Darshan:

From the draft text:
5. Paragraph 99 provides that India shall take all suitable measures for the physical protection of facilities and nuclear material subject to the agreement, taking into account the recommendations made in INFCIRC/225/Rev.4, as may be amended from time to time.
6. In paragraph 100 of the draft agreement India undertakes to establish and maintain a system of accounting for and control of all items subject to safeguards under the agreement, in accordance with provisions to be set out in the Subsidiary Arrangements.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7533
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Gerard » 13 Jul 2008 23:52

Six of the 14 reactors are already under IAEA INFCIRC66 safeguards (some for decades). Eight more will be added.
Don't expect inspectors from massa land to come and magically improve reactor safety in India. The DAE does know their stuff.

darshan
BRFite
Posts: 377
Joined: 28 Jan 2008 04:16

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby darshan » 13 Jul 2008 23:56

I do not expect US to come and improve any security issues in India.

enqyoob
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 20:25

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby enqyoob » 14 Jul 2008 00:00

Man I say lets import electric cities from off shore generators in USS nuke submarines all around our peninsula


Put the reactors all on a Southern Railways Goods Train and take it around the country. IAEA inspectors will never find it, since the SR babus won't be able to either... 8) People will come from far and wide to bask in the "tejas" and do sashtang namaskar before it, and put garlands on the engine.

Where I worked first as a PIGS, there was a hillock nearby which had a door going into it, with a big nuke sign on the door. Called "Crenshaw's Folly". The story is that the senior research engineer at the facility had 7 daughters, and heard that exposure to the "glow" would have same effect as "ek ya do, bas!" So he opened his pants and stood in front of the hillock every day.

(He died a few weeks ago. I heard it was cancer.)

John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby John Snow » 14 Jul 2008 00:11

Ok only the exposed members get cancer.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16448
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: woh log gawad hai, unpad hai !
Contact:

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Rahul M » 14 Jul 2008 15:09

wonder if anyone is working on a piece covering India's thorium efforts ?
very topical issue and n^3 may like it in his journal !
seriously, we seem to have so many nuke experts on BRF, why not do an article ?
I for one would be very interested in reading a BRFite's take on the issue.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19612
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Philip » 14 Jul 2008 17:09

Ask oneself why China is so supportive of this deal,because,if the deal was in India's best interests,China would've automatically opposed it! The Chino-Clinton gambit after P-2 failed,when both China and the US mounted a massive offensive against India for "farting loudly".The US with "Mad-Cow Halfbright" and her foot-in-mouth diatribes aaginst India prevailed little against our stout defence.Sanctions,etc. failed.This time a more sinister method of emasculating and castrating India's strategic deterrence is being used.Promise us "peaceful" nuclear cooperation by the bushel,which comes with invisible strings,that makes it almost impossible to "fart loudly" again.Henceforth,we shall have to suffer either constipation of nuclear dimensions ,through the threat of having to return fuel,eqpt. and whatever else has been procured,if we fart,or self-inflict emasculation and castration that will render us neutered forever,fondly remembering P-2 like a lost love!

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7533
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Gerard » 14 Jul 2008 17:42


NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby NRao » 14 Jul 2008 20:10

Philip,

With an economy of some Trillions of Dollars, India should enter into the club via back door ....... it is open. The question I have is if the Club is going to still maintain current standards in the future, and if not what are the implications. Considering the US is more alarmed about proliferation (check out Obama too!!!) I would think India needs to strongly subscribe to that nara. There is no need to sign on to any acronyms - they will cease to exist in the future.

That this deal is not fair will always remain an issue. The question, then, is how can India dismantle it. That dynamics will always remain. I think it is a matter of time. And, Indian management of three stage.

Just wish that MMS was a lot more open. There was really no need to release the IAEA doc to outsiders first. Low blow IMHO.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16448
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: woh log gawad hai, unpad hai !
Contact:

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Rahul M » 15 Jul 2008 00:53

ldev, Arun had asked you to clarify a post of yours.
I guess you know which one. could you kindly reply ?

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35961
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby SaiK » 15 Jul 2008 01:20

We need to add tsunami insurance and negative fallback as well into future installations along the sea coast. At least have norms that all reactors are built at least a km away from coast line, and have proper natural mangroves built around it for additional protection.

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1533
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby ldev » 15 Jul 2008 01:37

Rahul M wrote:ldev, Arun had asked you to clarify a post of yours.
I guess you know which one. could you kindly reply ?


Thank you kindly. I will respond.

The post in question refers to an amount of $303 Billion needed to purchase uranium for a period of 100 years. IMO, the calculations for that are totally wrong for the following reasons:

1. The production of uranium over the last 10 years has varied from 45,000 tons to 65,000 tons per annum. (There has been some supplementing from ex Soviet fissile material).

2. Arun_S wants to purchase some 1.5 million tons of uranium upfront.

3. When supply and demand are balanced at say 65,000 tons.... what will be the impact on the market if one buyer suddenly says that he wants to buy an amount equal to some 20-25 years of production?? What will happen to prices?

4. Which commodity in the world has a price, a market or a supply assurance for 100 years?

Hence, IMO, the calculations are all wrong and do not make sense. Arun_S is an experienced engineer and should know all of this. It is therefore surprising that he has posted calculations which appear to disregard market realities in regard to uranium pricing. The appearance therefore is that post is designed to frighten people with a big number......$303 billion ..... Oh my god.... this deal is going to bankrupt India....Look at the amount.... etc. etc......l. Now somebody looking at the issue dispassionately will realize that there is no market in the world for any commodity that has a 100 year horizon. So why make such a statement and post?

In his post, he has also posted a link for the questions the BJP has been asking. So the issue is what questions is the BJP asking and what questions is Arun_S asking? In his post, he has subsequently hotly denied that he is asking any questions on behalf of the BJP. But is there any need to clarify when no clarification has been asked by me? Frankly at least as far as I am concerned, it makes no difference if he is asking a question on behalf of the BJP or not. All questions if they make sense are legitimate questions whether asked for by the BJP, Arun_S or anyone else. But if they make no sense.... such as asking to buy 1.5 million tons of yellowcake.... then they make no sense irrespective of who has asked them. That is why I asked whether there was some confusion between yellowcake and ore. Mining 1.5 million tons of ore is one thing.... buying 1.5 million tons of yellowcake is a completely different order of magnitude and nothing more than a flight of fancy.

I hope this clarifies things.

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4390
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby putnanja » 15 Jul 2008 02:52

Don’t go by Kalam’s opinion on deal: Shourie

New Delhi, July 14: The BJP has alleged that the IAEA draft agreement shows that "India would be bound as a non-nuclear weapon state in perpetuity" and said the US was pushing the deal through "as it would bring India under the non-proliferation regime".

"In his address to the Lok Sabha on July 29, 2005, the Prime Minister had said we shall undertake the same responsibilities and obligations as the US. We expect the same rights and the benefits as the US. And India will never accept discrimination," BJP leader Arun Shourie said, adding that the assurance had been flouted in the IAEA draft agreement as "it does not recognise India as a Nuclear Weapons State (NWS)".

He also said that "one should not go by the opinions of the big names" like A P J Abdul Kalam and Brajesh Mishra while discussing the Indo-US nuclear deal. "I did not want to bring Kalam into this at all but he has come in and the Samajwadi Party and others are taking shelter under his great name," Shourie said.

He said that Kalam had sought an appointment with him three months back to discuss the nuclear issue. Though they conversed for more than an hour, Kalam did not come up with any new argument, Shourie said.

Shourie also claimed that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had told BJP leaders that the imported uranium post the Indo-US nuclear deal would be used for civilian purposes while the indigenous uranium would serve the country's defence needs. Shourie said this statement was made in a meeting called by the Prime Minister in August 2007, during which the 123 agreement was discussed.

Paul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3461
Joined: 25 Jun 1999 11:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Paul » 15 Jul 2008 03:18

self deleted. irrelevant
Last edited by Paul on 15 Jul 2008 03:25, edited 1 time in total.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50561
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby ramana » 15 Jul 2008 03:25

from Deccan Chronicle, 15 July 2008

Mukesh to get Sena for UPA


New Delhi/Mumbai, July 14: In a significant development, industrialist Mukesh Ambani met Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Monday, ahead of the crucial July 22 trust vote in the Lok Sabha. The meeting, ostensibly to counter demands for a windfall tax, took place against the backdrop of a move to keep the Ambani brothers in good humour at a time when the Congress-led government at the Centre is trying to ensure it has the numbers for the trial of strength.

Though Congress and government sources made it clear the Prime Minister would not interfere in “corporate warfare”, the Ambani factor has become important after the Samajwadi Party left the Left’s company and moved closer to the Congress on the Indo-US nuclear deal. Sources in Mumbai said Mr Mukesh Ambani is said to have assured Dr Singh that he would try and get the Shiv Sena to vote for the UPA. The Sena has 12 MPs and the party has been blowing hot and cold over its support for the nuclear deal.

The SP, especially general secretary Amar Singh, has been close to Mr Anil Ambani, and Mr Singh sharpened his attack on the performance of the finance minister, Mr P. Chidambaram, and the petroleum minister, Mr Murli Deora, after joining the Prime Minister’s camp. “Amar Singh is one of the key managers involved in mobilising numbers,” conceded Congress insiders. The Congress is also joining the SP in the political battle against the UP Chief Minister, Ms Mayawati. Mr Amar Singh wants the SP-Congress cooperation extended to Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh.
There was speculation that Mr Mukesh Ambani, the RIL chairman, was to meet the Congress chief, Mrs Sonia Gandhi, but highly-placed party sources said that no such meeting had been scheduled for Monday.

The Shiv Sena had initially indicated in its mouthpiece Saamna that it backed the nuclear deal and had attacked the Left for opposing it. This annoyed the BJP, the Sena’s ally, and it did a turnaround. Sena executive president Uddhav Thackeray said it would vote with the BJP after consulting that party. However, last week the party carried an article in Saamna supporting the nuclear deal.



Interesting. So little brother ropes in SP that wants some of the UPA ministers removed. So big brother brings in SS that could stave off the SP demands.

The oil refiniersies are with which brother?

Now we know why Sarkar Raj movie was made!

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4390
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby putnanja » 15 Jul 2008 03:27

Mukesh has the oil refineries

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50561
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby ramana » 15 Jul 2008 03:33

That explains why Deora is persona non grata for SP/Anil chotu.
Thanks

meanwhile Op_Ed from Deccan Chronicle, 15 July 2008

What is the N-deal?
By Pran Chopra

In recent weeks it has been repeated often and in many places, among them this column, that India should watch its step before getting closer to what has come to be known as the "nuclear deal" with the US. The reason for urging this caution resembles the reason why so many commentators find the deal to be so appealing: it is beautifully wrapped, and this beauty keeps one too busy to realise that there is little substance behind it.

The wrapping is woven mainly out of the argument that India needs "development", which in turn needs "energy." And because the deal promises to give us a bonanza of that, it must be embraced without wasting time on looking at it too closely. But the problem is that the closer one looks at the wrapping the faster its contents evaporate, and one is left empty-handed.

Hence the question: What is the deal ? The government must tell people whether the nuclear deal will enlarge India’s energy resources; by how much; at what unit cost; under what terms and conditions; for how long; and how it would compare in all these respects with such additional energy India may expect to get from other sources, including its own (which must of course include more efficient use.)

It has been India’s experience that a country sometimes withdraws with one hand what it might have given earlier with the other hand. India’s experience with fuel supplies to Tarapore is an example that comes readily to mind. Since then America has equipped itself better to repeat such actions under its own Hyde Act.

The Indian government insists that the Hyde Act does not apply to India. That may be so in theory but in practice it does, because in this context the Act has firmly tied the American government to the Hyde Act. This Act requires that in the event of India, as America sees it, violating any relevant American provision, the US government must withdraw all nuclear equipment and materials America may have supplied to India.

Therefore, under this Act American displeasure can not only blow holes into India’s nuclear programme, it can also get a peep into much of India’s own nuclear technologies and expertise that might have gone into the use or development of the American supplies. The Act is programmed to go into action, completely unilaterally, the moment India explodes another nuclear device, and thus it can also bring the CTBT into India through the backdoor. Apart from all that there is also the as yet unanswered (and, in fact, little asked) question: what will happen if the IAEA approves the deal and the US government blocks it?

Of course it is also true that in spite of these and other such examples of the misuse of their own laws, many countries, including America, now look upon India more favourably than they did before. The reason, at least partly, is that they think a nuclear India is better worth having on their side than what the country was before Pokhran I and II, and that at any rate it would be better to have India with them than to lose it to someone else.

Both these lines of reasoning rest largely upon what some see as the usefulness of India’s nuclear assets. Therefore, it follows that India must not barter away these assets for some short term gains or marriage of convenience. But at the same time India must remain willing, in keeping with its capacities at that time, to respond to its responsibilities as a new member of the latest and so far the most exclusive power grouping in the world, the group of nuclear weapon or at least nuclear capable countries.

How well has India responded so far to these somewhat contradictory obligations ? I would say that it has done so in proportion to the corresponding party’s appreciation of India’s position on the concerned issues. For example the Indian public responded positively to the first two joint statements by President Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on the issue, among others, of India’s role in the nuclear world. But the Indian response has been lukewarm, if not negative, to some of the issues raised in the 123 Agreement, because India has problems with some of the provisions of the Agreement which have been discussed but not resolved.

It is possible, or even likely, that some of the articles of the Draft Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA, which was made public on July 10, will make the path smoother for further agreement between India and the concerned UN bodies.

But hurdles can still arise if this draft does not find favour with influential elements in US Congress, especially but not only in the Democratic Party, which have been consistently opposed to certain changes in the Hyde Act which India considers to be essential for its own nuclear position.

What happened to the joint statements of President Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh after the US Congress had adopted the Hyde Act is an omen which will not be easily forgotten by those in India who understand these things better than some in the Indian government do. Neither India nor America have publicly heard from them, at least not till the moment of this writing.

After they have spoken it may be a better time to consider whether the title of this present comment should be revised. But as of now it remains debatable as to how far America will go in re-tailoring the Hyde Act to make it fit India’s Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA, and what will happen to the latter agreement if America does not accept it. The IAEA has sent the Draft Agreement to its board of governors. But it has not emerged from there as yet.

It would be particularly interesting to watch what happens to the portions of the preamble which, as reported, note that the "Safeguards Agreement is "an essential basis" for India to gain "uninterrupted access" to the international nuclear fuel market, and support India’s efforts to develop a strategic fuel reserve to guard against any disruption of supply.

As a notable press commentator pointed out last Saturday in The Hindu that though the IAEA document says India would have the right to take "corrective measures" in case a supplier of agreed quantities of fuel reneged on his commitments, there is a problem, which "remains", regarding the "measures" India can take.

The problem he envisages is too complicated to be explained in a short article. But it is enough to point out that such a problem "remains", apart from others which might be only comparatively simple.


Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Arun_S » 15 Jul 2008 04:06

ldev: Rahul M and I reviewed you reply and found that you did not address the issue. For you benefit it is quoted below. Thank you. -Arun_S {Admin hat on}

Arun_S wrote:
ldev wrote:Better check the numbers again. I think the BJP in its haste to criticize is getting confused between uranium ore and the price of U308 (yellowcake). Recalculate and you get completely different numbers.


Ldev: In the above you are insinuating that the post and calculations in it ware not mine but were provided by BJP. That is patently a lie and libel. Let me put it on record that I have no BJP affiliation nor any connection with the BJP party lowbies or high ups.

I demand an apology for your insinuation and libel.

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1533
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby ldev » 15 Jul 2008 04:11

Arun_S wrote:ldev: Rahul M and I reviewed you reply and found that you did not address the issue. For you benefit it is quoted below. Thank you. -Arun_S {Admin hat on}
[/quote]

I believe that I have addressed the issue. And I am sure that Rahul M can speak for himself.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16448
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: woh log gawad hai, unpad hai !
Contact:

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Rahul M » 15 Jul 2008 04:44

ldev, from this post of yours :
Better check the numbers again. I think the BJP in its haste to criticize is getting confused between uranium ore and the price of U308 (yellowcake). Recalculate and you get completely different numbers.

it seems to me you are referring to BJP and Arun_S interchangeably, which would obviously be a serious matter.
your post however does not clarify this point. hope you clear the air this time.

btw, I'll be out of net range for the next few days and therefore any further responses would come from the other mods.

Rahul.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7533
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Gerard » 15 Jul 2008 04:53

Dons of the nuclear deal
Reports have it that that Shahabuddin has been so taken by the deal that he is educating his fellow prisoners about the finer points. And how! A cell mate of the jailed MP was apparently completely overcome by the sheer eloquence. “Shahabuddinji told us the other day about the Hyde Act, the NSG, the IAEA, the 123 agreement, the 456 agreement and the MHWTSS. He pleaded the UPA’s case with such fire and passion,” the cell mate reportedly said with tears rolling down his cheeks.

:rotfl:

enqyoob
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 20:25

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby enqyoob » 15 Jul 2008 06:40

The Forum netas often jump on people and demand that all personal discussions be taken offline to email, but the above exchange shows a situation where the aam janata might in our ignorance feel for a microsecond that some of the newer Admins need some basic training about the birds, bees, use of toilets etc, and there is a serious problem with "older" Admins confusing forum Moderator status with something else.

Tell me, is it now really such a feud-quality insult for one postor to suggest that another postor is representing the view of some organization? Heck, I must have missed the chances for a whole law library worth of :(( :(( :(( . There are few evil organizations in the world (not to mention the Aliens) that I haven't been associated with by one postor or other (most shaheed, pbuh, but not because of me).

I read the exchange. I happen to agree that ldev had fairly good reason to suggest something of the sort he suggested. Now what business is that of mine? Well... two admins above seem to have ganged up and decided "we reviewed your answer and found it insufficient". Pity the P.E.N.I.S. thread isn't around - we could have commented on that in much clearer terms...

Well... I read all of it and found it quite sufficient. That makes it two against two, of course two mere peasants against two ADMINS. :shock: :eek:

With all due respect, ArunS and RahulM should please not bring their Admin-ness to debates where they clearly have some strong opinion or other. Decide whether you are Moderator or Arguer, and don't run off :(( :(( and take the bat and stumps home and call the goondas just because you lose on the playing field.

This is really sad to see. I could not believe it until I read it a few times. A much better thing to do, will be for BOTH Arun_S and Rahul_M to de-activate their Admin user IDs for the next few weeks until they cool off. Calvin did that for a while, all credit to him, it greatly improved my respect for him, so when he returned I resumed poking him, I am sure.

Neither Arun_S or Rahul_M is behaving in a particularly mature way, sorry. Chill out, both of you, please.

amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4324
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby amit » 15 Jul 2008 07:06

narayanan wrote: Tell me, is it now really such a feud-quality insult for one postor to suggest that another postor is representing the view of some organization? Heck, I must have missed the chances for a whole law library worth of :(( :(( :(( . There are few evil organizations in the world (not to mention the Aliens) that I haven't been associated with by one postor or other (most shaheed, pbuh, but not because of me).


N^3,

Just to add to your post - off course as a barghadar (that is landless share cropper, as I occupy an even lower status than you who's a mere peasant :D ) - that I was accused of being a member of the Congress party because I used to protest (maybe too much) against the Prime Minister of India being "lovingly" callled #*#*#*#.

When I saw the post it brought a smile on my lips and I remember for the first time on that day too as I was getting hell from the Gods who rule my office! Sometimes when "inane" accusations are made they do (and should) bring a simle because they are so far away from the truth. IMVHO off course.

And offcourse the "allegation" sailed under the radar of the Admins who were/are active participants in the Nuklear thread.

As regards this particular exchange, I would like to ask the learned BRF jigra - as lowly jigra member-in-training - what is more important and worth a discussion? The points raised by ldev or the "alleged accusation" against Arun_S?

If it's the latter then I apologise to the jigra for this post.

However, if it's the former then I think we should spend bandwidth analysing (and picking holes, if possible) in ldev's points. And not in trying to extract an apology.

Incidentally I think he has a very firm line of reasoning going. If we are going to sew up 100 years of supply of uranium we must at least try to do the same with coal or oil supplies as sources for both are controlled by the same "evil empires" who may deny us uranium. And when we are blocking 100 years of uranium are we assuming that technology (any technology used to generate electricity) will be frozen at the same level for the next 100 years? If that's so are we indirectly saying our thorium nirvana is actually a mirage?

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20886
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Prem » 15 Jul 2008 07:13

Few decades from now , Moon will be the new energy source. U,Thu and Pu will be available in abudance. IMHO , this is why many countries are rushing to this outpost .

enqyoob
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 20:25

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby enqyoob » 15 Jul 2008 07:31

As I have seen written by eminent personages, the next tsunami on the east coast will wash off the thorium sands on the west coast, plus knock out the FBRs and the PHWBRs or whatever, so there is no need to worry about any "three-stage".
GOBAR GAS. The ONLY way to "go". :mrgreen:

amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4324
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby amit » 15 Jul 2008 07:36

ramana wrote:That explains why Deora is persona non grata for SP/Anil chotu.
Thanks

meanwhile Op_Ed from Deccan Chronicle, 15 July 2008

What is the N-deal?
By Pran Chopra


It makes me sad to see that an accomplished and a learned individual like Pran Chopra has to resort to polemics to oppose the nuclear deal.

Hence the question: What is the deal? The government must tell people whether the nuclear deal will enlarge India’s energy resources; by how much; at what unit cost; under what terms and conditions; for how long; and how it would compare in all these respects with such additional energy India may expect to get from other sources, including its own (which must of course include more efficient use.)



I think the government has over the past few months answered many of these questions. (For example AK’s slides). However, the other side of the coin is that those who oppose the deal should also give a set of figures to show why this deal is so bad.

That is explain things like why the deal will not enlarge India’s energy resources; how much higher is the unit cost; and under what restrictive terms and conditions etc.

And all this talk about energy from other sources has run its course on BRF.

Why can’t this simple postulate be understood? That is India needs energy from all available sources be it oil, coal, hydroelectric, solar, wind, tidal as well as nuclear power. It cannot be everything else to the exclusion of one. Heck if we could steal some Jinn power from our pious brothers across our Western border we should send RAW to do that.

The Indian government insists that the Hyde Act does not apply to India. That may be so in theory but in practice it does, because in this context the Act has firmly tied the American government to the Hyde Act. This Act requires that in the event of India, as America sees it, violating any relevant American provision, the US government must withdraw all nuclear equipment and materials America may have supplied to India.


Sure the Act requires the US of A to withdraw all nuclear equipment etc in the event of an Indian test. But if – and please note I think there’s still an IF involved here – India gets a clean NSG waiver, along with a clear (as in additional protocols) IAEA waiver, how does the Hyde affect India in its nuclear dealings with say Russia?

Is it being assumed that the US of A will look at Putin (or whoever) sternly in the eye and demand Russia give up billions of dollars worth of business because the US has to abide by the provisions of the Hyde Act? Sorry this argument looks too much like a Red Herring.

After they have spoken it may be a better time to consider whether the title of this present comment should be revised. But as of now it remains debatable as to how far America will go in re-tailoring the Hyde Act to make it fit India’s Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA, and what will happen to the latter agreement if America does not accept it. The IAEA has sent the Draft Agreement to its board of governors. But it has not emerged from there as yet.

It would be particularly interesting to watch what happens to the portions of the preamble which, as reported, note that the "Safeguards Agreement is "an essential basis" for India to gain "uninterrupted access" to the international nuclear fuel market, and support India’s efforts to develop a strategic fuel reserve to guard against any disruption of supply.



If the IAEA draft is changed substantially from what it is at present, then I don’t think India is going to sign it. MMS and company are too far out on the limb to do that and if there was a problem with the draft in the first place I don’t think the present version would have seen the light of the day, IMO off course.

But why assume the worst? If we are so paranoid that everyone is out to jack us, we should follow N. Korea’s example and become a Hermit kingdom IMO.

Duangkomon
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 84
Joined: 05 Jun 2008 11:12

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Duangkomon » 15 Jul 2008 07:51

Rahul M wrote:ldev, from this post of yours :
Better check the numbers again. I think the BJP in its haste to criticize is getting confused between uranium ore and the price of U308 (yellowcake). Recalculate and you get completely different numbers.

it seems to me you are referring to BJP and Arun_S interchangeably, which would obviously be a serious matter.
your post however does not clarify this point. hope you clear the air this time.

btw, I'll be out of net range for the next few days and therefore any further responses would come from the other mods.

Rahul.


Rahul M , how did you come to the conclusion that ldev is using BJP and Arun_S interchangeably. Seriously!! In your quote from what I understand ldev states BJP might have made a mistake and if recalculated "you" (or one gets) get different numbers. It seems to be a trivial issue of English usage than serious insinuation.
Besides why is it obviously a serious matter if a member is associated with an organisation. It is serious only when Arun_S is involved or does it apply to all the posters. Please clarify this for the rest of us so we could be more careful in the future.

Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6091
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Amber G. » 15 Jul 2008 08:00

Ldev, Rahul, Arun_S,

See if this helps, Let me quote the whole message:

>>> Arun_S quote [ Form software would not let me put 3 quotes]

ldev wrote:
Arun_S wrote:Cross posting from IAEA draft document thread as it is relavent in this mainstream discussion:

BJP’s ‘questions’ on IAEA draft
And for 50GWe the lifetime fuel requirement is equivalent to mining 1.513 million tonnes of Natural Uranium and enriching it to medium enrichment. At current price of Uranium @ $68/Lb that is $226.5 Billion cost. Plus the enrichment cost of $77 billion (@$90/SWU). So the minimum cost of avoiding the repeat of TAPS-1 is to buy all that fuel in next 6 years for a cost of $303 billion.

A


Better check the numbers again. I think the BJP in its haste to criticize is getting confused between uranium ore and the price of U308 (yellowcake). Recalculate and you get completely different numbers.


Ldev: In the above you are insinuating that the post and calculations in it ware not mine but were provided by BJP. That is patently a lie and libel. Let me put it on record that I have no BJP affiliation nor any connection with the BJP party lowbies or high ups.

I demand an apology for your insinuation and libel.

As for rechecking yes I rechecked my spreadsheet and stand by the $303 Billion number. If you think they are wrong pls do care to correct those figures and show why they are wrong?[/quote]

>>> End of Arun_S's message.

It is clear, that it was Arun_S, who gave the BJP reference.

Ldev put two statements.
1. think the BJP in its haste to criticize is getting confused between uranium ore and the price of U308 (Naturally Arun_S has given the BJP reference, so any reasonable person would put the BJP reference - note also the qualifer "I think"
2. [Advised] Arun_S to recalculate the numbers to see what numbers he gets.

Now, if you are not clear, please check Ramana's often quoted (with the link) "Logical Falicy"

And surely you would agree: No, there is no "insulation" or otherwise which even implies that Ldev has libeled anyone.

Arun_S "demand of apology", to put it mildly, very peculiar.

Hope this helps.

(And BTW, I agree with Ldev, the figures given by Arun_S are absurd. I had one post before, in relation to lack of consistency in significant digits, and even that did not get corrected.)
Last edited by Amber G. on 15 Jul 2008 08:38, edited 1 time in total.

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1533
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby ldev » 15 Jul 2008 09:07

Rahul M wrote:ldev, from this post of yours :
Better check the numbers again. I think the BJP in its haste to criticize is getting confused between uranium ore and the price of U308 (yellowcake). Recalculate and you get completely different numbers.

it seems to me you are referring to BJP and Arun_S interchangeably, which would obviously be a serious matter.
your post however does not clarify this point. hope you clear the air this time.

btw, I'll be out of net range for the next few days and therefore any further responses would come from the other mods.

Rahul.


I dont think there is anything further to clarify. I did not refer to Arun_S and the BJP interchangeably. It was Arun_S who interjected the BJP link in his post and I commented on it.

Furthermore does this confusion based on a semantic issue constitute libel while:

1. Arun_S asking Kanson to take an enema in his nether parts is A-Ok.

2. Arun_S calling and/or implying that the Prime Minister of India is a traitor is A-Ok.

3. Other posters calling the Prime Minister of India as a Constable is A_Ok.

I do not see any apologies there for what are clear and unequivocal insults.

Since this matter is now out in the open, let me state clearly that:

Arun_S is gunning for me ever since our last run in on this thread sometime ago.

He is also probably pi**ed off that I post on the "other site" where other posters make fun of him. For the record I have never used derogatory terms to describe either him or the other mods or this forum very simply because I have the privilege of posting here too.

It would be expedient to post under a different ID there but if my views are consistent I see no reason to resort to subterfuge. If Arun_S is boiling away in rage at this, it is not my problem.

Arun_S, I sincerely advise you to take a chill pill and relax. Let BRF become again the place of learning and excellence that it was, until it became an idealogically riven conflict zone. And please do not threaten anyone by saying" Admin hat on", when you yourself have been part of that discussion/dispute. Decency would demand that you recuse yourself from "wearing your admin hat" in such situations.

And before you demand apologies for frivilous reasons consider your own abrasive manner over the years when you have cut people short and off and insulted a whole host of people including the Prime Minister of India.

Other admins.... I apologize for this digression. But IMO Arun_S is making a mountain out of a molehill due to his own frustrations and a burning desire to get back at me for the run in he had with me on this thread a few months ago.

I will respect your decision.

arnab
BRFite
Posts: 1136
Joined: 13 Dec 2005 09:08

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby arnab » 15 Jul 2008 09:27

narayanan wrote:
I read the exchange. I happen to agree that ldev had fairly good reason to suggest something of the sort he suggested. Now what business is that of mine? Well... two admins above seem to have ganged up and decided "we reviewed your answer and found it insufficient". Pity the P.E.N.I.S. thread isn't around - we could have commented on that in much clearer terms...

Well... I read all of it and found it quite sufficient. That makes it two against two, of course two mere peasants against two ADMINS. :shock: :eek:



How about a poll to find out whether Ldev's answer is sufficient or not ? :wink:

negi
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 12913
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Trying to mellow down :)

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby negi » 15 Jul 2008 09:34

I don't see why are we guys making a big deal out of this ?

For time being lets forget that Arun_S is an Admin, now all these arguments and exchanges between Ldev and Arun_S are just like any other heated exchanges on the internet forum.

Now I did not follow the exchange completely but as long as Admin is not using his powers to influence the debate (Have Ldev's posts been edited ? and on same note Ldev too need not tender an apology if he has not done anything which requires one ) I don't see how does it matter if Arun_S is an Admin or not.

Secondly on the issue of addressing the PMO and other people from the GOI in an appropriate manner , ( heck I am surprised I am having to say this ). I have seem many of the forum members resort to such language (including yours truly) and each time people have at most received Admin warnings (look at the Boys with Toys thread ). This happens everyday, so if Arun_S has too indulged in the same I guess it is logical that he too is liable for the same treatment nothing more nothing less.

Lets move on guys ..... I'd say arrange a BRF meet with lotsa BOOZE :mrgreen:

arnab
BRFite
Posts: 1136
Joined: 13 Dec 2005 09:08

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby arnab » 15 Jul 2008 09:46

negi wrote:
Now I did not follow the exchange completely but as long as Admin is not using his powers to influence the debate (Have Ldev's posts been edited ? and on same note Ldev too need not tender an apology if he has not done anything which requires one ) I don't see how does it matter if Arun_S is an Admin or not.

Secondly on the issue of addressing the PMO and other people from the GOI in an appropriate manner , ( heck I am surprised I am having to say this ). I have seem many of the forum members resort to such language (including yours truly) and each time people have at most received Admin warnings (look at the Boys with Toys thread ). This happens everyday, so if Arun_S has too indulged in the same I guess it is logical that he too is liable for the same treatment nothing more nothing less.

Lets move on guys ..... I'd say arrange a BRF meet with lotsa BOOZE :mrgreen:


I think Narayan is pointing to the endogenity problem in the response of the potential 'affectee' in suggesting that Ldev's answer has been 'reviewed and found insufficient'.

"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" (Who guards the guards?) was first asked of Plato's Socrates in The Republic. The question is put to Socrates, "who will protect us against the protectors?"

negi
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 12913
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Trying to mellow down :)

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby negi » 15 Jul 2008 10:10

arnab wrote:I think Narayan is pointing to the endogenity problem in the response of the potential 'affectee' in suggesting that Ldev's answer has been 'reviewed and found insufficient'.

"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" (Who guards the guards?) was first asked of Plato's Socrates in The Republic. The question is put to Socrates, "who will protect us against the protectors?"

You answer has been 'reviewed and found insufficient'.

Raju

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Raju » 15 Jul 2008 10:16

- that I was accused of being a member of the Congress party

I thought you were Amit Jogi.

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby Arun_S » 15 Jul 2008 10:22

Amber G. wrote:It is clear, that it was Arun_S, who gave the BJP reference.


Wrong. Please read what I posted, and not what ldev misquoted (knowingly or unknowingly), and then commented. For your benefit this is what I posted. Please pay close attention to the news report of BJP versus my argument, calculation and position.
Arun_S wrote:
Sanjay M wrote:What I want to know about is the quality of this 'strategic reserve'

We can keep this fuel reserve and use it in the event of a cutoff, although we will still have to allow inspections of it.

And once we return all imported fuel used in any reactor, then that facility is freed from any safeguard inspections.

Good question.

BJP’s ‘questions’ on IAEA draft
apprehensions on the question of fuel supplies to India’s nuclear reactors although the draft agreement clearly states that “an essential basis for India’s concurrence to accept Agency [IAEA] safeguards” is “international cooperation” in creating conditions that would allow India “to obtain access to the international [nuclear] fuel market, including reliable, uninterrupted and continuous access to fuel supplies from companies in several nations” to support India’s effort to develop “a strategic reserve of nuclear fuel …”

The party felt this would not ensure continuous supply.

Mr. Prasad wanted to know what “corrective measures” India could take if promises of fuel supply for the lifetime of a reactor were violated. The “corrective measures” have not been spelt out in the draft agreement, he said.

Corrective measures in hands of India after disruption of non-guerenteed fuel supply is .... nothing! Unless fuel for all reactors for their lifetime (typical 100 years) is procured and kept in India as and when construction of reactor start in India. But that also takes away the possibility of disruption in the first place.

Now Anil Kakodkar in his IISc presentation lays out a plan that envisages commissioning LWR for total capacity of 50GWe by 2020 (He states construction period is 5-6 years) so construction of the last LWR will start in 2014 (6 years from now). And for 50GWe the lifetime fuel requirement is equivalent to mining 1.513 million tonnes of Natural Uranium and enriching it to medium enrichment. At current price of Uranium @ $68/Lb that is $226.5 Billion cost. Plus the enrichment cost of $77 billion (@$90/SWU). So the minimum cost of avoiding the repeat of TAPS-1 is to buy all that fuel in next 6 years for a cost of $303 billion.

This assumes from Shri Kakodkar's presentation that India (nay all countries of earth) can build 40 nuclear plant of 1200MWe capacity in next 6 years to be producing 50GWe by 2020. {an astounding rate of building 6.6 nuclear plants each of 1,200 MWe, every year in India}. Frankly I think the power point slides of Kakodkar is selling vapourware to the gullible.

Going by the same power point slides the capital cost of erecting those plants by 2050 is:
    1. LWR plants 50 GWe capacity: $100 Billion + $303 Billion for lifetime fuel reserve
    2. FBR using LWR spent fuel, 330 GWe: $1.65 Trillion (for ordinary Abdul that is $1,650 Billion)
    3. FBR using indigenous 3 stage fuel cycle, 275 GWe: $1.03 Trillion (for ordinary Abdul that is $1,030 Billion)

Total capital cost over 42 years : $3.08 Trillion ($3,081 Billion)
Cost per year (assuming even averaging): $73 billion/Year for next 42 years.

Excuse me, what was the investment capital inflow in India last few years?
Or for that sake investment capital inflow in China last few years?

Am I the only one who feels being lost in the mirage?

arnab
BRFite
Posts: 1136
Joined: 13 Dec 2005 09:08

Re: Indian Nuke News & Discussion Thread-June 18 2008

Postby arnab » 15 Jul 2008 10:27

Raju wrote:- that I was accused of being a member of the Congress party

I thought you were Amit Jogi.


Wasn't his daddy (Ajit Jogi) in the INC? and on that breathtakingly original response by Negi (he remembered to bold it thereby creating a new response altogether), he should be promoted to Admn with immediate effect :lol:

R Vaidya
BRFite
Posts: 128
Joined: 04 Feb 2003 12:31

Cry My Beloved Motherland for--Parthasarathy Sudarshan

Postby R Vaidya » 15 Jul 2008 10:35

cry my beloved motherland --for parthasarathy sudarshan--

http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?news ... 5&pageid=3

rvaidya


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests