India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

[Amber G.]

Should be of interest to India:

ChatGPT said:

The U.S. Army has launched a new effort—through the Defense Innovation Unit—to prototype SMR's (microreactors) at nine Army installations by 2030. The initiative, called the Janus program, seeks commercially built reactors that can provide reliable 24/7 power, especially at bases with frequent outages, high electricity costs, or remote locations where fuel logistics are difficult. The Army argues that nuclear power may be the only practical way to meet growing energy demands while improving resilience against grid disruptions and attacks.

The selected sites include major installations such as Fort Bragg, Fort Hood, Redstone Arsenal, Fort Wainwright (Alaska), and Joint Base Lewis–McChord. Companies will prototype a “first-of-a-kind” and then a “second-of-a-kind” reactor at each location under flexible OTA contracting. Beyond powering bases, the Army hopes this effort will help jump-start the commercial microreactor industry, standardize designs, strengthen the nuclear supply chain, and attract new engineering talent.

Link:Army issues solicitation, announces sites for nuclear-powered bases

[Amber G.]

In the news:
Shocking! Uranium found in breastmilk of lactating mothers in Bihar, infants at potential health risk

[Sanatanan]

^
The article says:

Dr Ashok Sharma of AIIMS Delhi, who is a co-author of the study, said, "The study analysed breast milk from 40 lactating mothers and found uranium (U-238) in all samples. Although 70% of infants showed potential non-carcinogenic health risk, the overall uranium levels were below permissible limits and are expected to have minimal actual health impact on both mothers and infants. The highest average contamination occurred in Khagaria district and the highest individual value in Katihar district. While uranium exposure may pose risks such as impaired neurological development and reduced IQ, breastfeeding should not be discontinued and remains the most beneficial source of infant nutrition unless clinically indicated."

[Font highlight, mine]

So, are the headlines in Tribune news paper meant to be sensational?

I understand Uranium salts dissolve in ground water under favourable environmental chemistry as it is said to happened at Oklo, long long ago. Perhaps in Bihar these conditions exist. Hope AERB will go "deeper" into it . Consumption of such water perhaps manifests breast milk too. Body fluids of other residents in that area may also show U at ppm levels if tested.

On the other hand, is there some sizable U mineralisation in that area not so far identified by our geologists?

[Sanatanan]

^
I recollect some years ago, a similar U contamination "scare" was created in under ground waters even in Punjab.

[Amber G.]

Ottawa close to uranium deal with India worth $2.8 billion, Globe and Mail reports

Canada and India are reportedly close to sealing a US$2.8 billion, 10-year uranium supply deal, which would give India a stable long-term fuel source for its expanding civilian nuclear-power program. The uranium would come from Canadian producer Cameco, and the agreement aligns with broader efforts by both countries to revive economic ties, including restarting stalled CEPA trade talks. For India, the deal strengthens nuclear-fuel security, supports reactor expansion, and diversifies suppliers, while remaining under IAEA-linked safeguards. Neither government has officially confirmed the agreement yet, but it is seen as a major step in deepening civil-nuclear cooperation between the two nations.

[Amber G.]

Aritcle in Yahoo finance : Better Nuclear Play: NuScale Power vs. Oklo

Key Points
NuScale Power is developing small modular reactors, and it has a system approved by the NRC.

Oklo is trying to use recycled fuel for nuclear reactors, but does not have a design formally approved.

NuScale Power is a better bet than Oklo, but both stocks are incredibly risky to own right now.

My take - for India - Plausible though optimistic.

It’s realistic: in the sense that importing or licensing an already-certified SMR design (if regulatory, logistic, and financial constraints are addressed) can accelerate deployment compared to designing a new reactor from scratch.

But it’s also optimistic — because it assumes that a technology that’s not yet commercially demonstrated anywhere will seamlessly adapt to a different regulatory, infrastructural, and economic environment.

NuScale offers one of the best-case blueprints for SMRs today — and if India to consider this route, it should do so with caution, rigorous engineering–economic analysis, and long-term commitment, rather than seeing it as a plug-and-play solution.

----
FYI - As of now, NuScale and Oklo, AFIK, have no visible connection to India’s SMR plans. The SMR push in India is driven mainly by indigenous designs or by foreign firms already experienced with Indian regulation (Russia, France). The only U.S.-SMR vendor with a known India link is Holtec — so far.

IMO - If India wants to maximize nuclear-waste efficiency, thorium-cycle potential, and build on domestic PHWR + heavy-water infrastructure, it may remain committed to that path — meaning U.S. light-water SMRs like NuScale may not be a natural fit unless broader strategic priorities shift.

[Amber G.]

^
The article says:

Dr Ashok Sharma of AIIMS Delhi, who is a co-author of the study, said, "The study analysed breast milk from 40 lactating mothers and found uranium (U-238) in all samples. Although 70% of infants showed potential non-carcinogenic health risk, the overall uranium levels were below permissible limits and are expected to have minimal actual health impact on both mothers and infants. The highest average contamination occurred in Khagaria district and the highest individual value in Katihar district. While uranium exposure may pose risks such as impaired neurological development and reduced IQ, breastfeeding should not be discontinued and remains the most beneficial source of infant nutrition unless clinically indicated."

[Font highlight, mine]

So, are the headlines in Tribune news paper meant to be sensational?

<snip>

I completely agree with your analysis. The key point — which most headlines conveniently ignore — is that the AIIMS co-author himself stated that all measured uranium levels were below permissible limits and that the actual health impact is expected to be minimal.

The “70% potential risk” figure comes from a very conservative modeling method (Hazard Quotient), not from measured toxicity.(the risk model (HQ/TDI calculation) is extremely conservative. These models often overestimate risk when the dose is near threshold.They’re designed to capture the “maximum possible risk,” not the “likely” risk.)

Geochemically, it is perfectly plausible that certain alluvial aquifers in Bihar mobilize trace uranium, just as has been documented in Punjab’s Malwa belt and in several regions worldwide with similar hydrochemistry. Groundwater → maternal ingestion → breast milk is exactly the pathway you’d expect in such settings. None of this points to industrial contamination or a hidden uranium ore deposit — just natural geogenic mobilization that warrants monitoring.

The Bihar data are indeed a bit higher than typical global breast-milk values, but still well below US EPA/WHO drinking-water limits, which makes the sensational framing (“shocking!”) misleading. Overall, it’s an important environmental finding — not a public-health crisis, and certainly not a reason to discourage breastfeeding.

So:
Is the Bihar finding serious?
- Yes — it signals a groundwater-chemistry issue that should be monitored.
Is it dangerous?
-No — concentrations are well below harmful levels and below US/WHO drinking-water limits.
- Is media coverage sensational?
-Yes — headlines implying a toxic-health crisis are not supported by the measured values or by the authors themselves.

Permissible Uranium Levels in Drinking Water (United States (EPA)/WHO/India) - 30 µg/L (micrograms per liter) ( Bihar breast milk level ~ 2–3 µg/L (Maximum: around 7–9 µg/L) MUCH lower to be health hazard)

[A_Gupta]

Does it indicate viable uranium deposits?

[Amber G.]

Does it indicate viable uranium deposits?

FWIW - my educated guess almost certainly is - No — these findings do not indicate the presence of a viable uranium deposit.

Elevated uranium in groundwater or breast milk usually reflects natural geochemical mobilization, not an ore body large enough for mining. ( Trace uranium in exit in ..
Gangetic alluvial sediments, ( and/or Fluvisols derived from Himalayan granitoids and/or U-bearing phosphates and ash layers and/orb High-carbonate groundwater

Anyway the concentrations are far below what’s needed for an economic ore deposit, and
the source is just trace uranium in granitic or metamorphic source rocks upstream.

This same pattern occurred in Punjab, where groundwater showed elevated uranium but detailed surveys by AMD and AERB confirmed no mineable ore bodies — just geogenic processes (oxidation, carbonate complexing, and leaching from sediments).

If Bihar had a major hidden deposit, you would expect anomalies in soil and rocks, not only groundwater consistent spatial clustering and much higher concentrations (tens–hundreds of µg/L or mg/L)

None of that has been reported.

So the data indicate natural groundwater chemistry, not a mining-grade uranium resource. The issue is environmental hydrochemistry, not mineral exploration potential.