India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Hiten · Post by **Hiten** » 20 Jan 2013 17:13

during the time leading to the Indo-US nuclear agreement & NSG waiver, there was an article citing an argument by some influential decision-makers who in the early 80/90s suggested India could go ahead and sign the NPT & CTBT, as its '74 design, however, rudimentary, would provide India sufficient deterrence.

Hunting, not finding. Would be very helpful, if someone could share the URL.

Vipul · Post by **Vipul** » 25 Jan 2013 07:21

Narasimha Rao had asked Kalam to be ready for nuclear test.

Just two days before announcement of results of the 1996 general election, then prime minister P V Narasimha Rao had directed A P J Abdul Kalam, scientific adviser to the defence minister at the time, to keep his team ready for a nuclear test.

However, with the poll outcome throwing up a change in government, Rao ensured his impending successor Atal Behari Vajpaee was briefed in his presence on the nuke test plans and so enabled a smooth takeover of the nuclear programme.

This was revealed by Kalam himself while delivering the 7th R N Kao Memorial Lecture, organized by the Research and Analyses wing of the Cabinet Secretariat, here on Thursday. "I still remember a scene during May 1996. It was 9 'o' clock. I got a call ....that I should meet Prime Minister P V Narasimha Rao immediately," Kalam said.

According to the father of India's missile programme, who later went on to become the President of India, Rao told him, "Kalam, be ready with the department of atomic energy and your team for the N-test and I am going to Tirupati. You wait for my authorization to go ahead with the test. DRDO-DAE teams must be ready for action".

Recounting Rao's plans were not meant to be as "the election result was quite different from what he anticipated", Kalam said he received yet another call from the then PM asking him to meet him along with Prime Minister-designate Vajpayee. This was "so that the smooth takeover of such a very important programme can take place," he elaborated.

However, the nuke test plans could not be carried out as the Vajpayee government lasted barely 13 days.

Noting that Rao's act of ensuring continuity of the nuclear programme "reveals the maturity and professional excellence of a patriotic statesman who believed that the nation is bigger than the political system," Kalam revealed that the first task he was assigned after Vajpayee embarked on his second stint as the PM in 1998 was to conduct the nuclear test at the earliest.

The Pokhran tests were finally carried out in May, 1998.

Placing the focus of his lecture on cyber terrorism and counter measures, Kalam on Thursday suggested an empowered coordinating agency be set up to receive information about all cyber attacks. Apart from calling for continuous upgrade of technical capabilities by the intelligence agencies, the former President insisted that hacking skills be imparted by scientists, computer software and hardware experts, on the lines of China where virus writing is taught in its military schools.

Kalam suggested human intelligence and electronic intelligence be used as a tool to penetrate terrorist groups, besides building offensive and defensive cyber capabilities on the lines of nuclear capabilities. "Technology-driven covert operations are becoming the order of the day and inflicting collateral damages through critical information infrastructure is threatening to change the conventional wisdom in warfare," he said and sought crippling of the ability of terrorists to use technology for communication.

Kalam also recommended creation of an intelligence cadre, like the Indian Intelligence Service, by recruiting specifically for intelligence agencies. All these recruits, he said, must be made to pass a strict personality test based on evolved and dynamic physiological and psychological aptitude tests.

abhijitm · Post by **abhijitm** » 25 Jan 2013 07:58

I think PVNR was one of the visionary leader after IG. Many people blatantly took credit of his decisions. One took the credit of nuke test and another went away calling himself economist for opening up the indian economy.

akashganga · Post by **akashganga** » 25 Jan 2013 23:38

abhijitm wrote:I think PVNR was one of the visionary leader after IG. Many people blatantly took credit of his decisions. One took the credit of nuke test and another went away calling himself economist for opening up the indian economy.

Yes Shri Narasimha Rao was remarkable. He accomplished so many things in his 5 years in office and got did not get any credit. He solved Punjab problem, Assam Problem, Ayodhya problem, opened up the economy, nuclear issue, and so on. Manmohan Singh should thank Narasimha Rao for what he is today. If Narasimha Rao had another 5 year term he would have resolved Kashmir issue also once for all.

Unfortunately no one in congress party praises him or gives him any credit. In hist last days he was fighting court cases. Indira Gandhi deserves praise for getting Narasimha Rao to national stage when she was PM. I read somewhere that India adapted county wide 10 + 2 system of school education when he was education minister.

I would rate Narasimha Rao as the most intelligent PM india ever had.

My 2 cents.

kenop · Post by **kenop** » 26 Jan 2013 07:07

OT here but, it seems this mention of PVNR (who is not quite liked otherwise) are a way for the INC to take credit for Pokhran II. So far, it has been BJP that had peoples' mindshare on this topic.

JwalaMukhi · Post by **JwalaMukhi** » 26 Jan 2013 07:30

Ot:
Shri.PVNR was the most dangerous person to the powers that seek influence of the delhi durbar. Let alone INC take credit thro' PVNR, he is most despised, all the systems are put in-place to ensure that no one else with a fraction of the capability and intelligence, ever makes in INC in particular, and more generally across all other parties. The Lowest common denominator is pushed very low, that conditions for a man who is shadow of Shri.PVNR, never to rise even by chance.

sum · Post by **sum** » 26 Jan 2013 21:56

From Dr.Kalam's Kao Lecture

At the Island range at Stealth launch pad, a simulated Agni launch preparations were going on in high intensity. In Pokaran range, away from the action, point number of rockets -- PINAKA type -- were put into action. At mid-day and evening, the Air Force was bombarding with runway destruction bombs on the experimental runway. These are all intensified events for a particular purpose. There is a strategy of seeing beyond the event that is going to take place and also be aware of the reconnaissance satellites of other countries which were looking at purposely generated events.

This was a well-planned measure of diverting the attention of snoopers. India woke up the next day with the news that three nuclear tests had been conducted on the same day and another two the next day. Friends, these events happened in India. It was an unexpected, unscheduled event in the eyes of the world. No one knew about it except three souls and their classified team. And India became a nuclear weapon state in 1998.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 27 Jan 2013 02:09

sum wrote:From Dr.Kalam's Kao Lecture

At the Island range at Stealth launch pad, a simulated Agni launch preparations were going on in high intensity. In Pokaran range, away from the action, point number of rockets -- PINAKA type -- were put into action. At mid-day and evening, the Air Force was bombarding with runway destruction bombs on the experimental runway. These are all intensified events for a particular purpose. There is a strategy of seeing beyond the event that is going to take place and also be aware of the reconnaissance satellites of other countries which were looking at purposely generated events.

This was a well-planned measure of diverting the attention of snoopers. India woke up the next day with the news that three nuclear tests had been conducted on the same day and another two the next day. Friends, these events happened in India. It was an unexpected, unscheduled event in the eyes of the world. No one knew about it except three souls and their classified team. And India became a nuclear weapon state in 1998.

All these events require multiple spy satellites beyond the capabilities of even the big nations.

akashganga · Post by **akashganga** » 27 Jan 2013 04:22

JwalaMukhi wrote:Ot:
Shri.PVNR was the most dangerous person to the powers that seek influence of the delhi durbar. Let alone INC take credit thro' PVNR, he is most despised, all the systems are put in-place to ensure that no one else with a fraction of the capability and intelligence, ever makes in INC in particular, and more generally across all other parties. The Lowest common denominator is pushed very low, that conditions for a man who is shadow of Shri.PVNR, never to rise even by chance.

INC of today is not the same as INC of Mahatma Gandhi and Sardar Patel. The current INC is controlled by italian mafiaso. They specially hate any one who takes pride in his or her hindu heritage. Mahatma Gandhi carried Bhagawat Gita all the time with him. Even chacha Nehru, and Indira Gandhi never shied away from wearing their hindu faith in public. Narasimha Rao is the last of those congress wallahs who represented the INC of Mahatma Gandhi and Sardar Patel. Under current circumstances there is no chance for any one to challenge the Sonia/Rahul Gandhi and take over leadership of congress. The day when INC finally becomes independent of Gandhi parivar will be the day it will regain its former glory. This is not likely to happen in my life time. Cheers.

gakakkad · Post by **gakakkad** » 27 Jan 2013 08:44

Actually pvnr wanting to conduct nuke test was a pretty well known fact here and was extensively discussed by iirc ramana et al a decade ago..

the important thing to note is the year 1996...it was in september 1996 that UNGA adopted the CTBT...

PVNR was advised by people in the nuke establishment and some senior diplomats that nooks should be tested before the resolution is adopted at the UN general assembly for Yindia to be considered a de jure weapons state...

the french conducted there last tests in jan 1996...India was prepared to test a few months later...but killton sahib pressurised pvnr that he had to abandon the plan..so we missed the opportunity to become a de jure , nook weapons state...

also well known is the fact that it bas PVNR who advised ABV to test after his election victory in 1998...

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 28 Jan 2013 10:51

Meanwhile some authoritative reports of radiation effects after in depth study at Fukshima. These reports are in stark contrast of endless "dead man walking" and "extreme radiation in Fukushima fish type reports. (For example see this recent story about :Fukushima Fish With 2,500 Times The Radiation Limit Found Two Years After Nuclear Disaster

All interested parties should read authoritative reports and here are a few for the record.

From United Nations' UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR)
(Link: for example: http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/fukushima.html

There are similar reports worth reading (some links given below, but are easy to google) from WHO, and studies at MIT, Tokyo University.

From UNSCLEAR (submitted to UN General Assembly etc):
The report has also found no observable health effects from last year's nuclear accident in Fukushima.
>>> (Some excerpts)
(The studies come from the UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) after five years of work. An independent body of international experts, .... They will then serve to inform all countries of the world when setting their own national radiation safety policies.

Presenting to the UN General Assembly, UNSCEAR's ....findings were that no radiation health effects had been observed in Japan among the public, workers or children in the area of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. This is in line with studies already published by the World Health Organisation and Tokyo University that showed people near the damaged power plant received such low doses of radiation that no discernible health effect could be expected.
....

Uncertainties at low doses are such that UNSCEAR 'does not recommend multiplying low doses by large numbers of individuals to estimate numbers of radiation-induced health effects within a population exposed to incremental doses at levels equivalent to or below natural background levels.' (This is what I and a few other scientists were pointing out here again and again)

Six workers received total doses of over 250 mSv during their time tackling the emergency, while 170 received doses over 100 mSv. None of these have shown ill effects, said UNSCEAR, stating that radiation played no role in the coincidental deaths of six Fukushima workers in the time since the accident.

... it was not possible to attribute increases in health effects across populations to long term exposure at radiation levels typical of the global average background levels (1-13 mSv per year). 'This is because of the uncertainties associated with the assessment of risks at low doses, the current absence of radiation specific biomarkers for health effects and the insufficient statistial power of epidemiological studies.'
For exposures below 100 mSv UNSCEAR said that a health issue across a population could be put down to radiation exposue on two conditions: that spontaneous occurrence of that issue was low while the radiosensitivity of that issue were very high; and that the number of cases was high enough to overcome 'the inherent statistical uncertainties'.

Last year, Japanese authorities protected children in Fukushima prefecture from iodine-131 by evacuating them before radiation was released, issuing stable iodine pills to block iodine-131, and preventing food and water containing the radioactive isotope from being consumed. As a result, the largest dose thought to have been received by a Japanese child is 35 mSv - this figure also coming from UNSCEAR's preliminary report. This is 'reassuring' in comparison to the doses received by children after the Chernobyl accident, said UNSCEAR while, "That good news must be underlined," said Argentinian delegate to UNSCEAR, Gerardo Diaz Bertolome.
The statistical chance of health effects increases through the range of 100-1000 mSv exposures, 'but there are statistical limits in calculating that risk and the population in question had to be big enough to do so.' The only radiation events on this scale, where populations of thousands have received on the order of 100 mSv, have been the atomic bomb blasts in Japan from World War II.
In general, the effects of radiation only start to become clear at 'high acute absorbed doses... such as might occur following exposures in accidents or radiotherapy', for example a dose of over 1000 mSv. Even then it is necessary to eliminate other potential causes before radiation can be unequivocably said to be the cause, said UNSCEAR.

(Please do read the report in original)

WHO report story from reutershttp://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/ ... IA20120523 .. Read the orginal report to see: " estimated the radiation doses that residents of Japan have received in the year following the accident at Fukushima Daiich... most Fukushima homes outside the 20 kilometre evacuation zone were comparable to reference levels for radon)...

Also interesting is this MIT study (I may have referenced it before)..
>>>
Integrated molecular analysis indicates undetectable DNA damage in mice after continuous irradiation at ~400-fold natural background radiation. ..
...These studies suggest that exposure to continuous radiation at a dose rate that is orders of magnitude higher than background does not significantly impact several key DNA damage and DNA damage responses," ..
"...It is interesting that, despite the evacuation of roughly 100,000 residents, the Japanese government was criticised for not imposing evacuations for even more people. From our studies, we would predict that the population that was left behind would not show excess DNA damage - that is something we can test using technologies recently developed in our laboratory,.

(Again please do read the whole article for context and clarity)
A new look at prolonged radiation exposure MIT study suggests that at low dose-rate, radiation poses little risk to DNA.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 28 Jan 2013 11:29

Okay, Just for fun here is a short question for the experts here..what is your answer..

If one has to handle the following substances - All 1Kg identical cube etc for equal amount of time, Identical handling etc ..which will give you more radiation..

A (1 kg pure uranium)
B (1 kg uranium ore - from Canada - Hint: Canadian ore is high about 15%)
C (1 kg uranium ore - from Austraila - It is less concentrated less than 1%)
D. 1 Kg of Brazil Nuts

(Put A,B,C,D in right order, Alao approximately how much (in standard unit) each one's radioactivity is?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 28 Jan 2013 21:31

E Paki nuts.

Vipul · Post by **Vipul** » 29 Jan 2013 04:37

Draft approval for new Indian nuclear site.

A new six-unit nuclear power plant at Mithi Virdi in Gujarat will be "environmentally benign and sustainable" while benefitting the region both economically and socially, said a draft assessment on behalf of the proposing company.

The study was carried out for Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. (NPCIL) by Engineers India Ltd. (EIL), itself an Indian government-led organisation, to set out to establish baseline environmental data for the project to build up to six imported 1000 MWe light water reactors at the coastal site 40 kilometers from Bhavnagar. It also evaluated potential impacts of the project and formulated environmental management plans for both the construction and operation phase. EIL collected data within a ten-kilometer radius of the site over three seasons (summer, post-monsoon and winter) from December 2010 to November 2011 to prepare its report.

Mithi Virdi received approval in principle from the Indian government as a site for up to six imported 1000 MWe light water reactors in 2009. In 2012 US reactor vendor Westinghouse signed a memorandum of understanding with NPCIL agreeing to negotiate an early works agreement for the construction of up to six AP1000 units at the site. According to the preliminary environmental impact assesment (EIA), the project is not anticipated to have any significant impact on local flora, fauna or human activities. The report details the planned systems to manage gaseous, liquid and solid radioactive wastes and keep discharges below the required limits in normal operation as well as the passive safety design and engineered safety features of the plant.

Based on its findings, the report concluded that the planned Mithi Virdi project would be "environmentally benign and sustainable" and would provide "much needed electricity with minimal environmental impact". It noted that the project will benefit the region generally and contribute to improved social conditions, with NPCIL contributing towards "uplifting" of the surrounding areas and positive impacts including employment, better transport facilities, and improvements to basic education, health and infrastructure in the area.

The power plant project is expected to be completed in three stages, with the first two units pencilled in for completion in 2019-2020, the second two units in 2021-2022 and the final stage completed in 2023-24. The cost is still under negotiation.

Mithi Virdi is one of four sites for which NPCIL is currently involved in pre-project activities. The others are Gorakhpur (Haryana), earmarked for four Indian-designed 700 MWe pressurized heavy-water reactors (PHWRs); Kovvada (Andhra Pradesh), where six GE-Hitachi ESBWR units are planned; and Chutaka (Madhya Pradesh), earmarked for two indigenous 700 MWe PHWRs. A final EIA for the Gorakhpur plant has been submitted to India's Ministry of Environment and Forests for appraisal, while preliminary EIAs are still in preparation for Kovvada and Chutaka.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 30 Jan 2013 04:57

Selected to premier at the 2013 Sundance film festival in January - worth watching the full length
documentary- film Pandora’s Promise .

http://pandoraspromise.com/
http://robertstoneproductions.com/pandoras-promise/

pentaiah · Post by **pentaiah** » 31 Jan 2013 03:05

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 31 Jan 2013 21:16

pentaiah wrote:DCBA

Distorted Coulomb-Born Approximation?

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 01 Feb 2013 00:41

For those interested in technical aspects of nuclear power as it relates to India.. A few random news items..India should be watching.

I (and a few others) talked about pebble bed type reactors, (which may have been lost in all that noise).. DOE in USA has recently awarded some money for these types of HTGR( high-temperature gas cooled reactor studies

(For basic background , wiki article may be helpful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very_high_ ... re_reactor

Interestingly while in Japan, where all (but perhaps two) NPP have been shutdown, there is quite a bit of research and talk about these type of reactors too, and some renewed interest back in nuclear energy revival (Present Govt, and specially prime minister is, relatively speaking, quite pro-nuclear) (One can see stories like http://www.theinternational.org/article ... ght-future

In Russia (Beloyarsk nuclear power plant) sodium coolant has been added to a forthcoming fast reactor, to be started next year.. Also They have installed a few tanks on other site making a milestone for Russia's first floating nuclear power plant.

Meanwhile, in Germany, the news is Germany's tax on nuclear fuel rods, introduced by the federal government in 2011 and fiercely opposed by the country's atomic power plant operators, violates the constitution, a Hamburg-based finance court said this week.German Court: Convinced Nuclear Tax Violates Constitution

And in China, among other news items..Yangjiang steam generators are now on site ..(In addition to AP1000 news item)..

pentaiah · Post by **pentaiah** » 01 Feb 2013 01:09

PRC is leading in pebble bed reactors research and commissioning based Scietific American artcile I read in my dentis office some time ago.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 01 Feb 2013 02:41

^^^ This seems to be correct, China is taking them very seriously, there is a prototype (10 MW HTR-10), a conventional helium-cooled, helium-turbine design in Beijing. The first 250-MW plant is supposed to be commissioning in 2013 and news reports shows firm plans for 20-30 such plants by 2020 .... By 2050, China plans to deploy as much as 300 gigawatts by some reports ..and this may be the largest planned nuclear power deployment in history.. if they find the design successful

For record, some older but still useful article from NYtmes.
Pressing Ahead Where Others Have Failed

SHIDAO, China — In pursuing pebble-bed nuclear reactors, China is pressing ahead with a nuclear technology that other countries have struggled to master. <snip>

Or A Radical Kind of Reactor

Hiten · Post by **Hiten** » 02 Feb 2013 17:33

some design changes to be made to the successor to India's PFBR, the FBR

http://www.aame.in/2013/02/fast-breeder ... and-2.html

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 02 Feb 2013 21:54

^^^ Thanks..
Also with respect to above, some may find this recent item interesting wrt fast reactor in Russia..
Sodium coolant arrives at fast reactor

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 03 Feb 2013 05:08

There have been reports of leaks in piping during the commissioning of the KKNPP which is causing these endless delays. The reports have been leaked anonymously by workers themselves. It is interesting that the media keeps a studious silence. Also interesting that the establishment is not required to release this data. The reports indicate a problem with the quality of the material used for the seals. Instead of investigating further and revealing what the problem is the establishment is replacing only affected the seals and proceeding at which point several workers quietly leaked the info. The fact that is information has to be leaked for folks to hear about it is another reason our nuclear power consensus is so broken.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 03 Feb 2013 05:10

^ source please.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 03 Feb 2013 05:43

Another odd little tidbit was mentioned to me today.

For the past several years/months of commissioning phase the KKNPP has been consuming about 130 MW of electric power from the grid 24x7, no power cuts. The PFBR near Chennai is scheduled to consume another 80-200 MW of power during its extensive commissioning phase estimated to be 2 year at least.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 03 Feb 2013 10:00

RamaY wrote:^ source please.

SP Udaya Kumar

vic · Post by **vic** » 03 Feb 2013 10:39

Can somebody list the sanctioned indigenous PHWRs? It seems around 20 units of 750 MW have been sanctioned.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 03 Feb 2013 14:36

Good announcement. Good start, now to see implementation.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Mad ... 373073.ece

District Collector C. Samayamoorthy conducted a comprehensive discussion with the heads of 13 village panchayats around Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project (KKNPP) at the Collectorate on Friday regarding implementation of development schemes in these rural local bodies under the Rs. 500 crore special package.

After Chief Minister Jayalalithaa unveiled a slew of development projects for the village panchayats around KKNPP site, the panchayat presidents submitted their wish-list based on their requirements.

Subsequently, it was decided to construct gryones in the coastal hamlets which experience severe sea erosion and establishment of desalination plants, cold storages, primary health centres, permanent houses, roads and bridges, solar lamps etc.

When the first consultative meeting was held a few months ago in this connection, it was decided to construct groynes at Uvari, Kooththenkuzhi, Idinthakarai and Perumanal on an outlay of Rs. 50 crore and desalination plants to supply drinking water to the coastal villages at the cost of Rs. 70 crore.

Cold storages

Besides expanding the 30-bedded hospital at Kudankulam at the cost of Rs. 10 crore, primary health centres will be created at Uvari and Chettikulam, each on an outlay of Rs. 1 crore. Cold storages for preserving the marine products will be established at five coastal villages.

Above all, 10,000 permanent houses will be constructed in three phases in these village panchayats. As Rs. 16.60 crore was allotted for laying roads and constructing bridges in these local bodies, the work has already been started. During the meeting held on Friday, Mr. Samayamoorthy, who sought village panchayat heads’ cooperation in implementing the development schemes, discussed the issue of commencing the work on constructing groynes and the desalination plants. Besides the heads of 13 village panchayats, chairman of Radhapuram union V.S.R. Jagadeesh, chairman of Valliyoor union Azhaganantham, district panchayat chairmamn P. Narayana Perumal participated in the meeting.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 03 Feb 2013 21:33

Amber G. wrote:Okay, Just for fun here is a short question for the experts here..what is your answer..

If one has to handle the following substances - All 1Kg identical cube etc for equal amount of time, Identical handling etc ..which will give you more radiation..

A (1 kg pure uranium)
B (1 kg uranium ore - from Canada - Hint: Canadian ore is high about 15%)
C (1 kg uranium ore - from Austraila - It is less concentrated less than 1%)
D. 1 Kg of Brazil Nuts

(Put A,B,C,D in right order, Alao approximately how much (in standard unit) each one's radioactivity is?

OK. So I Googled it:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf05.html

Radioactivity of some natural and other materials
1 adult human (65 Bq/kg) 4500 Bq
1 kg of coffee 1000 Bq
1 kg of brazil nuts 400 Bq
1 banana 15 Bq
The air in a 100 sq metre Australian home (radon) 3000 Bq
The air in many 100 sq metre European homes (radon) up to 30 000 Bq
1 household smoke detector (with americium) 30 000 Bq
Radioisotope for medical diagnosis 70 million Bq
Radioisotope source for medical therapy 100 000 000 million Bq (100 TBq)
1 kg 50-year old vitrified high-level nuclear waste 10 000 000 million Bq (10 TBq)
1 luminous Exit sign (1970s) 1 000 000 million Bq (1 TBq)
1 kg uranium 25 million Bq
1 kg uranium ore (Canadian, 15%) 25 million Bq
1 kg uranium ore (Australian, 0.3% 500 000 Bq
1 kg low level radioactive waste 1 million Bq
1 kg of coal ash 2000 Bq
1 kg of granite 1000 Bq
1 kg of superphosphate fertiliser 5000 Bq

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 03 Feb 2013 23:03

The real question to ask is
- what happens if 1 kg of Uranium is vaporized in the center of Manhattan with 2 kg of C4.
vs
- What happens if 1 kg of brazil nuts is vaporized in the center of Manhattan with the same C4.

Can anyone answer?
-----------------

This business of trying to make radioactive substance sound innocuous is not different than the opencarry.org nuts trying to get people used to folks walking around in walmart with assault rifles. It is disappointing to see obvious progressives persisting with this line.
-------------------------------

Here is another question to ask.
What happens if Dawood Ibrahim walks through Mumbai customs carrying 1 kg of Uranium vs carrying 1 kg of brazil nuts.

disha · Post by **disha** » 04 Feb 2013 01:02

^^ Liar.

When did Dawood have any nuts? So the case does not arise.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 04 Feb 2013 05:23

Mort Walker wrote:
OK. So I Googled it:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf05.html

Radioactivity of some natural and other materials
1 adult human (65 Bq/kg) 4500 Bq
1 kg of coffee 1000 Bq
1 kg of brazil nuts 400 Bq
1 banana 15 Bq
<snip>

Radioisotope source for medical therapy 100 000 000 million Bq (100 TBq)

1 kg uranium 25 million Bq
1 kg uranium ore (Canadian, 15%) 25 million Bq
1 kg uranium ore (Australian, 0.3% 500 000 Bq
<snip>

Thanks! very useful information ..

From that source - answer to the query which may be interesting ,,,

Though the intrinsic radioactivity is the same, the radiation dose received by someone handling a kilogram of high-grade uranium ore will be much greater than for the same exposure to a kilogram of separated uranium, since the ore contains a number of short-lived decay products ...

Also from that source, radioisotope source for medical therapy, kilo for kilo, is MILLIONS of times more radioactive than U..(Gamma rays from these sources will kill while U's alpha rays will not even pass through skin)

A kilo of U (even U235 - A kilo is much smaller than critical mass so can not be a fission bomb) exploded is not going to do any more damage than the damage caused by the explosives itself, except, may be for easily avoidable panic caused by ignorance.... (Radioactivity in Hiroshima came mainly from fission products and not from U per se ..so unless there is fission, an exploding Kg of U's radioactive effect is *negligible*)

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 05 Feb 2013 08:32

Amber G. wrote: an exploding Kg of U's radioactive effect is *negligible*)

Some may find this calculation interesting... please do read this (or any standard physics references)..
Uranium and Dirty Bombs

... Uranium is more than 99% U-238, which has a half life of almost five billion years. The rest is U-235, which has a half life of almost a billion years...

..Alpha particles (emitted by U) . have low penetrating power, and clothes are sufficient to keep them from penetrating to the body. In fact, alpha particles do not penetrate the surface of the skin..

...uranium is poisonous. So there will be some health effect of spreading uranium around, just as a bomber could mix his explosive with asbestos or mercury or lead to make clean up more difficult and expensive. But that does not meet anyone's definition of a "dirty" bomb.

To produce harm what 3 grams of Co -60 (2010 case where it was found in Delhi scrap shop) radioactivity will produce .. one would need about 10,000 tons of Uranium..!!!

.

Think about that for a minute.. and that puts all that nonsense propagated by PMANE into perspective.

pentaiah · Post by **pentaiah** » 05 Feb 2013 20:56

Amber G. wrote:^^^ Thanks..
Also with respect to above, some may find this recent item interesting wrt fast reactor in Russia..
Sodium coolant arrives at fast reactor

Notice that liquid Sodium origin is France, and Midhani and BHPV both had French collobration as well.
hope we can get the technology to make large scale liquid sodium as well.

The sodium was supplied by MSSA Metaux Speciaux of France, which started producing 'nuclear grade' sodium in the 1960s. It supplied sodium to France's Superphenix fast reactor as well as Japan's Monju unit.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 05 Feb 2013 22:04

Who or What is PMANE?

pentaiah · Post by **pentaiah** » 05 Feb 2013 22:11

ramana wrote:Who or What is PMANE?

here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_M ... ear_Energy

P(eoples)M(ovement) A(gainst) N(uclear) E(nergy)

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 05 Feb 2013 22:14

Thanks.

But by same token all those 'fears' of loose nuke materials being used in dirty bombs are also red herrings?
You will have a bad day for cleanup but not as bad as Bhopal night was.

pentaiah · Post by **pentaiah** » 06 Feb 2013 00:43

ramana wrote:Thanks.

But by same token all those 'fears' of loose nuke materials being used in dirty bombs are also red herrings?
You will have a bad day for cleanup but not as bad as Bhopal night was.

One landscaping/fill guy used to advertize

"Dirty deeds done at dirt cheap"

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 06 Feb 2013 07:39

^^^ Here is one well written, and useful article about "dirty bombs" from MIT's technical review website..

I am putting here, for people to read.

Please note that the author is one I have often quoted here.. the Berkeley professor who teaches "Physics for future president"

"The biggest danger from radiological weapons
is the misplaced panic that they would cause."

The Dirty Bomb Distraction

Terrorists might attack the U.S. homeland again this summer, the Justice Department and the FBI warned last month. The same day, the Department of Energy announced a $450 million plan to counter terrorist nuclear weapons and dirty bombs. And shortly afterwards, the Justice Department released some details about Jose Padilla, the one-time street thug who had received extensive al Qaeda training and had hoped to explode a dirty bomb in the United States. But according to the Justice Department announcement, al Qaeda had doubted that Padilla’s proposal to build a dirty bomb was practical. They directed him instead to blow up two apartment buildings using natural gas. They apparently felt that such an action would have a greater chance of spreading death and destruction than would a radiological weapon.
Al Qaeda was right. Perhaps that should scare you. Al Qaeda appears to understand the limitations of these devices better than do many government leaders, newspapers, and even many scientists.

Our experience with radiological weapons—the fancier name for dirty bombs—is limited. They do not require a chain reaction like fission or fusion weapons, but instead use ordinary explosives to spread pre-existing radioactive material. Saddam Hussein reportedly tested such a weapon in 1987, but abandoned the effort when he saw how poorly it worked. In 1995, Chechen rebels buried dynamite and a small amount of the radioactive isotope cesium-137 in Moscow’s Ismailovsky park. They then told a TV station where to dig it up. Perhaps they recognized the truth: that the bomb’s news value could be greater if it were discovered before it went off. For such weapons, the psychological impact can be greater than the limited harm they are likely to cause.

I don’t mean to suggest that radioactive materials are harmless. Indeed, consider the story of scavengers in Goiania, Brazil, who found and dismantled an abandoned radiotherapy machine in 1987. The machine contained 1,400 curies of cesium-137. (A curie is the radioactivity of one gram of radium.) Two men, one woman, and one child died from acute radiation poisoning; 250 additional people were contaminated. Several of the 41 houses evacuated could not be cleaned adequately and were demolished.

Imagine now if that radiation weren’t confined to a few houses, but were spread over the city by an explosion. Wouldn’t fatalities be higher? The surprising answer is: No. If the radioactivity were dispersed in that way, larger area would have to be evacuated, yet in all probability no specific deaths could be attributed to the event.

To understand the details, let’s walk through the design of a dirty bomb similar to what Padilla wanted to build. I’ll assume the same amount of radioactive material as was in Goiania: 1,400 curies of cesium-137. Radiation damage is measured in units called rem, and if you stand one meter from that source, you’ll absorb 450 rems in less than an hour. That’s called LD50, for lethal dose 50 percent. Untreated, you’ll have a 50 percent chance of dying in the next few months from that exposure.

To try do enhance the damage, let’s use explosives to spread our 1,400 curies over a larger area, say a neighborhood one kilometer square. That will result in a radioactivity of 1.4 millicuries per square meter, and a careful calculation shows that residents will get a dose of 140 rems per year. But radiation illness is nonlinear. For extended exposures, the lethal dose increases by the fourth root of time, to approximately 1,250 rems for a one-year exposure and 2,500 rems for a 16-year exposure. So 140 rems per year is not enough to trigger radiation illness, even if you stayed there 24/7 for a decade. Radioactive contamination may be the one case for which the solution to pollution really is dilution.

There will be no dead bodies at the scene, unless someone is killed by the explosion itself. I suspect that’s why al Qaeda instructed Jose Padilla to abandon the dirty bomb concept and try to plan a natural gas explosion instead.

But even a dirty bomb without casualties could spread nuclear panic, based on the danger of long-term cancer. For doses in the 100-rem range, results from historical exposures suggest the increased risk of cancer is about 0.04 percent per rem. That’s a 6 percent increase in your chance of dying from cancer for each year you spend in the square kilometer. If the radioactivity were spread over a larger area, e.g., a 10- by 10-kilometer square, then the dose would be lower (12.6 rems per year) and so would the added risk of cancer: 0.06 percent per year of exposure. (I am assuming, conservatively, that risk is proportional to dose, even at low doses. With such contamination, would I evacuate my home? Not if I were allowed to stay. To me, the increased risk—from the pre-existing average risk of cancer of about 20 percent per year to, say, 20.06 percent—is not significant.

But I wouldn’t be given the choice. The exposure of 12.6 rems per year is 126 times more than the yearly limit allowed to the public. In fact, the Environmental Protection Agency decontamination standard is 0.025 rems per year, meaning that 98 percent of the radioactivity would have to be removed before I would be allowed to return to my home.

In the September 11 attacks, the terrorists took advantage of U.S. policy and prejudices. They knew they didn’t need guns to take control because pilots had been instructed to cooperate with hijackers; nobody expected hijackers to turn planes into weapons. Similarly, a terrorist today might use a radiological weapon, not because of its actual damage, but in anticipation the out-of-scale panic and ensuing economic disruption that the weapon could trigger.

Could other radiological attacks be more potent than our hypothesized cesium-137 example? Electrical generators powered by the decay of radioisotopes, found in abandoned lighthouses in Russia, held 400,000 curies of strontium-90. But strontium-90 emits virtually no gamma rays; it is harmful only if you breathe it or ingest it. A cloud of aerosolized Sr-90 can kill—but it does not stay in the air for long. For the same reason, even a radiological bomb made using plutonium is unlikely to be dangerous. Anthrax would be deadlier, and much easier to obtain and transport. Nuclear waste storage facilities and nuclear reactors contain vastly more radioactivity, and the danger from them is substantial, if their radioactivity can be released.

If small dirty bombs threaten so little harm, why are they lumped in with true weapons of mass destruction? The reason is: it’s the law, as written in the 1997 National Defense Authorization Act (Public Law 104-201) and other places, including California penal code 11417. Defining them this way was a mistake that could lead to misallocation of resources and a general overreaction if such weapons were used. I hope, and expect, that most of the $450 million to be spent on the anti-nuclear initiative announced last month will be used to protect us from nuclear explosives and attacks on nuclear storage areas, and not specifically from radiological weapons.

If terrorists do attack this summer using a dirty bomb, the resulting death might come from automobile accidents as people flee. Dirty bombs are not weapons of mass destruction, but weapons of mass disruption. Their success depends on public and government overreaction. Beware not radioactivity but nuclear panic. The main thing we have to fear from a dirty bomb is fear itself.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 07 Feb 2013 03:26

Nuclear-logjam ahead of Hollande visit

Jayanth Jacob, Hindustan Times

Ahead of French president Francois Hollande's visit to the capital, India and France are locked in a logjam over the price of nuclear reactors, which could hold up the signing of the commercial agreement for six EPR units in Jaitapur, Maharashtra.

The French attribute advanced
safety features in the 1,650-MW third-generation European pressurised reactor - known as EPR - by their nuclear energy major Areva to the high price. They also cite the stringent safety audit practices incorporated after the Fukushima incident to explain the cost increase.

However, Indian sources say there is 20% difference between what France quotes as the minimum price and the maximum price that India can pay. Consequently, both sides are engaged in intense negotiations.

Though the exact figures were not divulged, France's demand for six reactors is expected to be anywhere between Rs. 3,40,000 and Rs. 3,50,000 crore. However, Indian officials say it is too high.

India says that the prices cited are "European" and can be brought down in the Asian context, considering that the price of reactor components sourced from here will be much cheaper. As labour costs are also less in India, the prices should be much less than what the French are asking, it contends.

Hollande will meet PM Manmohan Singh for talks on February 14. The agenda of the meeting will comprise subjects relating to cooperation in energy, defence and space sectors.

The French is also appreciative of Indian help in forums such as the United Nations for their efforts in Mali. In December 2012, India had co-sponsored a French resolution supporting an African Union-ECOWAS military force in Mali at the United Nations.