All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
A team of Greenpeace activists surveyed Mayapuri scrapyard on Wednesday and said radiation levels were much lower than last week.
"As of now radiation levels are low but not normal. Bringing them to normal background levels involves detailed handling, checks and re-checks and we need to discuss the way forward," a Greenpeace spokesperson said.
. . .
Greenpeace identified six hotspots with considerably elevated radiation levels. Of these, two spots had radiation 5,000 times more than the normal background level, it said. Following this, a team from the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB), the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) and the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) and the Narora Atomic Power Station was decontaminating the area.
. . .
If true, the above might imply that AERB, NDMA, BARC, personnel from Narora Atomic Power Station et al did not do their work properly in the first place (after their earlier decontamination effort at Mayapuri when they claimed that all sources of radiation had been located and that decontamination has been completed implying that the place was now safe for occupancy.)
Plans to develop a uranium deposit within the Balphakran National Park in Meghalaya state, India, have been rejected by a federal ministry because local authorities had failed to prevent illegal coal mining in the area.
The Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) had sought approval from the Ministry of Environment and Forests to conduct exploratory drilling for uranium in the Garo Hill District. However, at a recent meeting of its Standing Committee of the National Board on Wildlife, the ministry decided to reject the proposal.
In a statement, the committee said that, while acknowledging India's urgent need to augment domestic uranium supplies, it "took this decision keeping in view of the sentiments of the local people and a number of representations received from local civil society groups."
Seems like a lot of illegal (coal) mining in the area has resulted in the decision.
By December, the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre will set up a research laboratory at Tarapur to test various systems of the 300 mega watt Advanced Heavy Water Reactor (AHWR), which will allow India to use thorium instead of uranium for power generation.
The trials for the AHWR will begin in 2011, said Ratan Kumar Sinha, the new director of BARC who took charge on Wednesday.
“The new unit will generate three times more power which assess whether various systems in the AHWR can withstand high pressure levels. It will have four channels and the fuel handling machine in one of them will be tested,” said outgoing director S. Banerjee.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton refrained from directly mentioning India and Pakistan in her answer, but did say that the US would soon explore the possibility of having a similar kind of dialogue with China. "We want to explore beginning conversations with other nuclear nations, starting with China, and see what kind of opportunity for discussion could exist," Clinton said.
Senator Benjamin L Cardin said the India-Pakistan issues are also ones of major concern to all of them and noted that that Russia and the US to work together on these issues that are important for the international community, including Iran and North Korea.
Yesterday Senator Jim Risch said initially it was only between the US and Russia.
"We had the United States and we had Russia that had nuclear weapons. And we were doing the things that we did, and rightfully so, and it was important that we had the treaty," he said. "It seems to me, where we now have other countries, Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, India, and the other issues out there, it seems to me that a missile defence is more important now than it's ever been," Risch said.
Americans cannot think of India without Pakistan. This is some kind of difficulty they face.
I was talking to a gora recently. He expressed this same frustration that India and Pakistan need to work together for solving their problem in Afghanistan.
Americans cannot think of India without Pakistan. This is some kind of difficulty they face.
I was talking to a gora recently. He expressed this same frustration that India and Pakistan need to work together for solving their problem in Afghanistan.
But the source of the headline is Indian. Why blame the US when we have enough idiots to hyphenate in India itself? And these Indians also spout what the Americans might think.
The title is misleading, but the content is OK. I do not see it as anything intrusive into Indian affairs. In fact I would argue that it is great if the START talks/discussions actually build a US-China narrative.
Consider the administration's recently released Nuclear Posture Review (NPR). One of the conditions that would permit the United States and others to give up their nuclear weapons "without risking greater international instability and insecurity" is "the resolution of regional disputes that can motivate rival states to acquire and maintain nuclear weapons." Another condition is not only "verification methods and technologies capable of detecting violations of disarmament obligations," but also "enforcement measures strong and credible enough to deter such violations."
The first condition would require ending the Arab-Israeli conflict, settling the Korean War, resolving Kashmir and the other India-Pakistan disputes, and defusing Iran's tensions with its neighbors and with the U.S. It also means solving any other significant conflicts that might arise.
Speaking on the condition of anonymity, a western diplomat said that there were countries, which had accepted that India and Pakistan were not going to become part of the treaty and suggested a new track to rein them into the non-proliferation regime.
"We are going to try and put them in a cooperation system with obligations so that they would have the same obligations that NPT countries without being in the NPT," he said, noting that such an agreement was better than doing nothing.
Several experts, however, have pointed out that by the time the final document was prepared the names of the countries may be replaced by a more general call for the universal acceptance of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
India has opened talks on civil nuclear energy with Japan and both sides have decided to set up a working group to examine the possibility of cooperation during an extended interaction between Japanese Minister for Economy, Trade and Industry Masayuki Naoshima and Planning Commission Deputy Chairman Montek Singh Ahluwalia recently, said highly placed sources.
Japan is the most reluctant among countries with either uranium reserves or nuclear reactors to enter into cooperation with countries reluctant to accede to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT)
The working group was formed under the rubric of the energy dialogue between the two countries. “We discussed responsible nuclear energy policies. You could say this is the first step towards cooperation,” said the sources.
In case that happened, vistas would open for partnership ranging from not just setting up nuclear reactors but fast breeder reactors and reprocessing, the sources said.
Japan has expertise in advanced uranium mining techniques, which it now shares with Kazakhstan that has emerged as the world's biggest supplier of uranium and which, like Japan, is reluctant to enter into nuclear cooperation until some of the hurdles are crossed.
“We need to conclude a bilateral agreement. We have not really decided whether to start negotiations,” said the sources. Japan, they said, recognised India's contribution to nuclear disarmament and also took note of the positive movement towards this trend such as the U.S. posture review, which envisaged a kind of diminished role of nuclear weapons.
India's refusal to sign the NPT might not be a major obstacle to civil nuclear cooperation with Japan but Tokyo expects New Delhi to take some concrete steps such as signing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).
In this respect, the sources pointed to the December visit to India by Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama when he indirectly mentioned the importance of India signing the CTBT given that China and the U.S. agreed to ratify the treaty.
More than signing the NPT, Japan's cooperation will depend on how India plays a role in world politics on nuclear weapons and how it abides by the action and commitments made in September 2008 in a letter written to the Nuclear Suppliers Group by then Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee.
Rip Van Winkle wrote:
Speaking on the condition of anonymity, a western diplomat said that there were countries, which had accepted that India and Pakistan were not going to become part of the treaty and suggested a new track to rein them into the non-proliferation regime.
"We are going to try and put them in a cooperation system with obligations so that they would have the same obligations that NPT countries without being in the NPT," he said, noting that such an agreement was better than doing nothing.
Justification for TSP never ends, PRC continues to challenge the US led global order. PRC acts where she needs to. The ayatollah's give PRC and TSP the needed cover.
Paradoxically, in this case two wrongs somewhat make a right. The China-Pakistan deal is more than something the U.S. must tolerate. In the context of our deal with India, it actually improves our strategic circumstances.
Based on procurement data and public advertisements for bidding requests, Paul Brannan of Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) concluded in 2006 that India was on the verge of adding at least 3,000 centrifuges to the RMP1. If the construction seen in the March 3, 2010 imagery is for a new gas centrifuge hall, India’s uranium enrichment capacity at RMP will be greatly expanded.
^^^ Most likely fuel for Arihant class subs. India doesn't need HEU for fission weapons since the design is based on Pu. HEU would be useful for secy of TN but we know they don't need that.
So this is usual psy-ops and self flagellation by NPAs.
Sanatanan wrote:
A team of Greenpeace activists surveyed Mayapuri scrapyard on Wednesday and said radiation levels were much lower than last week.
"As of now radiation levels are low but not normal. Bringing them to normal background levels involves detailed handling, checks and re-checks and we need to discuss the way forward," a Greenpeace spokesperson said.
I am skeptical of Greenpiss and their claims and on top of it DDM reporting. There will be mucho Rona & Dhona of how bad and SDRE we are.
Sanatanan wrote:
If true, the above might imply that AERB, NDMA, BARC, personnel from Narora Atomic Power Station et al did not do their work properly in the first place (after their earlier decontamination effort at Mayapuri when they claimed that all sources of radiation had been located and that decontamination has been completed implying that the place was now safe for occupancy.)
Aren't we building in lot of assumptions and leaping to judge them immediately with the above statement?
Americans cannot think of India without Pakistan. This is some kind of difficulty they face.
I was talking to a gora recently. He expressed this same frustration that India and Pakistan need to work together for solving their problem in Afghanistan.
Our own DDM deserves to be kicked around for going back and hyphenating us with napakis. DDM has lack of confidence on the avg. Indian., I guess.
Regarding the comment by the gora, I had a similar experience and with relish I had to point out that Arizona needs to work with Mexico to solve its immigration issues. Good thing Mexico is not yet nuclear armed by Cubans !
ramana wrote:^^^ Most likely fuel for Arihant class subs. India doesn't need HEU for fission weapons since the design is based on Pu. HEU would be useful for secy of TN but we know they don't need that.
So this is usual psy-ops and self flagellation by NPAs.
Ramana-ji
One of the weapons tested in the Shakthi series used U233 - which would be a byproduct of our thorium reactors.
India on Saturday dispelled unusual apprehensions about its nuclear assets and spelt out the norms for extending help to Afghanistan into the future.
National Security Adviser Shiv Shankar Menon assured participants at an international conference here that they “don't need to worry about Left-wing extremism affecting the security of our nuclear assets.”
He told the ninth Asia Security Summit, being organised by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, that he was holding out the assurance as an insider with “some knowledge of this issue.” He was answering questions on the Maoist militancy in India its nuclear-asset security.
On the Maoist menace, Mr. Menon said: “We will combat it [Left-wing extremism] in two ways. One is, of course, the immediate law and order issue... But there is [also] a larger issue of making our growth more inclusive, so that we can remove whatever causes there might be for disaffection.”
As for the “very few and small areas affected by it,” Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had said that “Left-wing extremism is probably the major internal security challenge.” Underlining the internal nature of the problem, Mr. Menon said: “It doesn't have the kind of external links that we have seen other terrorist challenges having in the past or the kind of external support” they received. India was “located beside the epicentre of global terrorism.”
disha wrote:
I am skeptical of Greenpiss and their claims and on top of it DDM reporting. There will be mucho Rona & Dhona of how bad and SDRE we are.
. . .
Aren't we building in lot of assumptions and leaping to judge them immediately with the above statement?
Skepticism with regard to the claim by Greenpeace is perhaps well taken. The caveat, "If true" was included by me in my earlier post with that possibility (namely, disbelief of this news story) in mind.
However, to the best of my knowledge, so far (nearly 2 weeks after the report published in a widely read news paper, Deccan Herald - it might have appeared in other news media too), no one from AERB or NDMA or BARC or Narora Atomic Power Station or DAE (that is, none of those who were involved in the 'clean up') has refuted, in the media, the claim by Greenpeace.
The chatter began weeks ago as armchair engineers brainstormed for ways to stop the torrent of oil spilling into the Gulf of Mexico: What about nuking the well?
Decades ago, the Soviet Union reportedly used nuclear blasts to successfully seal off runaway gas wells, inserting a bomb deep underground and letting its fiery heat melt the surrounding rock to shut off the flow. Why not try it here?
Skepticism with regard to the claim by Greenpeace is perhaps well taken. The caveat, "If true" was included by me in my earlier post with that possibility (namely, disbelief of this news story) in mind.
However, to the best of my knowledge, so far (nearly 2 weeks after the report published in a widely read news paper, Deccan Herald - it might have appeared in other news media too), no one from AERB or NDMA or BARC or Narora Atomic Power Station or DAE (that is, none of those who were involved in the 'clean up') has refuted, in the media, the claim by Greenpeace.
FWIW I have never taken time to "refute" the validity of Jinn Thermodynamics. either..
Also, in Indian newspapers (yes including widely read newspapers) there was a story about how one Baba, who survived on sunlight alone for last few decades is being invited by NASA to teach the astronauts on how to live without food..to best of my knowledge I did not see any "refutation" by director of NASA of that claim either ...
My question is simply why didn't Deccan Herald asked the Greenpeace guy (and reported it in the news paper) that if his calculation is supported by any other scientist (after all how difficult it is to measure the radiation- specially if it is at a level which is that high as reported).. or interview and/or seek the opinion of BARC (or even a prof at Delhi U) about the reliability/validity of that Greenpeace data...
Reporting some unverified numbers, and one-sided story (BTW I read the report, and some of the sentences of that report and there are internal contradiction in that report itself for me to give it any credibility) is pretty sloppy work by DDM's..blame them not others..
We still overwhelmingly use fossil fuels -- renewables, all told, probably add up to 5 percent [of U.S. energy consumption]. What's a realistic 10-year goal?
We're at about 4 percent now. ..... In 10 years' time we hope to have carbon capture and sequestration technologies starting to be deployed. Hopefully we'll have restarted the nuclear industry and we'll be building several nuclear reactors.
India will hold bilateral talks with Australia during the next two days for purchase of nuclear fuel besides increasing its import of coal and gas . . .
There are also plans to initiate some discussions on sourcing uranium from Australia, though at present the Labour Government here has already made it clear it will not supply uranium to those countries which have not signed the NPT (non-proliferation treaty).
But India has maintained that uranium is important for the country to secure “clean'' energy for its population. It expects Australia to recognise the fact that India has a good record on its usage of uranium which will help the country to cut greenhouse gases.
The Heavy Water Board (HWB) has bagged one of its biggest export orders of 11 mt of heavy water from South Korean state-owned power firm KHNP in 2009-10.
This comes on the back of orders for 4,400 kg of nuclear-grade heavy water from US firm Spectra Gases Inc. and 4.6 tonnes of high-quality heavy water from US-based Cambridge Laboratories IncHyderabad-based Nuclear Fuel Complex (NFC) has also successfully executed an order received from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) against global competition for manufacture, supply and commissioning of the fuel element end-cap welding unit to Turkish Atomic Energy Authority.
India has also readied a reactor prototype targeted at the export market, which has generated interest in Kazakhstan and among some Asean countries.
Its return to the Kaurava Rajya Sabha when the CJI defends a wrong verdict by sticking to principle legal point.
FLASH | Tuesday, June 8, 2010 | Email | Print |
Former CJI backs verdict in Bhopal case
PTI | New Delhi
Former Supreme Court Chief Justice AH Ahmadi on Tuesday rejected criticism of dilution of charge against Union Carbide executives in Bhopal gas tragedy case, saying in criminal law there was no concept of vicarious liability.
He also lamented that there was absence of law to deal with disasters of Bhopal kind and said law can be amended to provide for adequate punishment. :-(
Justice Ahmadi, who headed the bench in 1996 that converted the CBI charge under the stringent provisions of 304-II that provided for maximum of 10 years imprisonment to Section with two years maximum imprisonment, said it was easy for people to talk and make allegations but judges have to work under the system.
"One has to work within the system, within the framework of law. It is easy to speak today, to swing with the tide," he said reacting to criticism that the decision given by bench had led to light punishment given by a Bhopal court in the gas case yesterday.
"There is no concept of vicarious liability. If my driver is driving and meets with a fatal accident, I don't become liable to be prosecuted under 304-II," he said.
Justice Ahmadi said that there was no vicarious liability concept in criminal law except that "if there is an abetment, the abettor may be joined with the principal offender. If there is a common intention situation or conspiracy situation, that is understandable. Otherwise no."
Legally it was watered down by mid 90s thru the above decision by Supreme Court and the culpability of UC International was watered down even earlier by Rajiv Gandhi govt in late 80s when they accepted a token sum.
ramana wrote:Its return to the Kaurava Rajya Sabha when the CJI defends a wrong verdict by sticking to principle legal point.
FLASH | Tuesday, June 8, 2010 | Email | Print |
Former CJI backs verdict in Bhopal case
PTI | New Delhi
Former Supreme Court Chief Justice AH Ahmadi on Tuesday rejected criticism of dilution of charge against Union Carbide executives in Bhopal gas tragedy case, saying in criminal law there was no concept of vicarious liability.
He also lamented that there was absence of law to deal with disasters of Bhopal kind and said law can be amended to provide for adequate punishment. :-(
Justice Ahmadi, who headed the bench in 1996 that converted the CBI charge under the stringent provisions of 304-II that provided for maximum of 10 years imprisonment to Section with two years maximum imprisonment, said it was easy for people to talk and make allegations but judges have to work under the system.
"One has to work within the system, within the framework of law. It is easy to speak today, to swing with the tide," he said reacting to criticism that the decision given by bench had led to light punishment given by a Bhopal court in the gas case yesterday.
"There is no concept of vicarious liability. If my driver is driving and meets with a fatal accident, I don't become liable to be prosecuted under 304-II," he said.
Justice Ahmadi said that there was no vicarious liability concept in criminal law except that "if there is an abetment, the abettor may be joined with the principal offender. If there is a common intention situation or conspiracy situation, that is understandable. Otherwise no."
Legally it was watered down by mid 90s thru the above decision by Supreme Court and the culpability of UC International was watered down even earlier by Rajiv Gandhi govt in late 80s when they accepted a token sum.
That is typical example of judicial maneuvering. If I tell my driver to drive rashly with no regard to consequences as I have to cover 100km in 50 minutes then I am fully liable under Section 34 and of 120B IPC. Ahmadi is dishing out trash
Amazing for Obama's audacity,effrontery and temerity to say that the Bhopal verdict must not affect the Nuclear Liability Bill,when he is breathing fire and thunder at BP vowing that they should pay every nickel and dime for the oil spill! One standard for the US and another for India and the "turd world".
I begin with an admission that as I write this post, many facets of the issue are a bit fuzzy and are not clear to me. I am hoping to get some gyan on thess issues.
After being subjected to frenzied, non-stop, breast-beating in both print and electronic media, about the "Bhopal verdict" in the past two days, I have begun to wonder why this "halla-gulla" is at all taking place now. Was it not known even earlier (that is, in the last 22 or so years) that, given the facts of the case as presented, this could be the only judicial decision possible? Did anyone seriously believe that the court would rule the accused not guilty or that it would award a punishment that is more severe than what the law prescribed? Then, why promise a "re-look" into the provisions of Nuclear Civil Liability Bill, now, after this verdict? Why are even some Union Ministers seemingly 'baying for the blood', as it were, of the then CEO of Union Carbide (Warren Anderson) now, when just a few days earlier they had agreed to completely absolve the US designers / suppliers of Nuclear plants and components of any charges of wrongdoing, vicarious or otherwise, in the event of malfunction(s) resulting in a nuclear accident?
For example, was DMRC Managing Director E Sreedharan 'vicariously liable' for the deaths in the Delhi Metro and crane collapse incidents, or the Union Minister for Aviation or MD of Air India 'vicariously liable' in the case of deaths that took place in the recent Air India accident at Mangalore? Likewise fatal Railway accidents through non-sabotaged derailments and train collisions, braking system failures etc. What are / would be the norms for establishing 'vicarious liability', particularly in the event of a nuclear accident? Is the number of dead alone a criterion for this purpose? If former Supreme Court Chief Justice AH Ahmadi says that concept of vicarious liability does not exist in criminal law, then I think it might be for some good reason; perhaps establishment of such a liability would be difficult, if not impossible in cases such as the Bhopal event or a nuclear accident. Was someone held vicariously responsible for Chernobyl or Three Mile Island events (I do not know)? Please do not misunderstand me, I hold no brief for Warren Anderson or any of the executives of Union Carbide India who have been found guilty in this case -- I am only looking at this "problem" as it might affect nuclear accidents in future by setting precedents.
Maybe I need to dig up info on whether, in the Bhopal disaster case, it has been proven that the CEO of UC condoned the use of equipment that had a sub-standard design, or sub-standard quality of manufacture or sub-standard maintenance or sub-standard operating procedures.
I now begin to get a glimmer of an idea as to why almost always the pilot, or the engine driver or the operator of a plant that is involved in an accident is blamed under the heading "human error" -- this may be the easy way out of issues based on establishing vicarious liability!
This Bhopal judgment, as of now, is in its early stages with several stages of appeals to higher courts yet to happen.
Under the circumstances, I think it might turn out to be disastrous for NPCIL to agree to operate any foreign designed / supplied (particularly from the US) nuclear power plant. (Many modifications and upgrades are said to have been carried out in the 1960's vintage, US-supplied, BWR plants at Tarapur 1&2, so that, perhaps, for the purposes of this discussion, they can be considered to be Indian!!).
I foresee that any 'relook' into the present provisions of the Nuclear Liability Bill, would only be cosmetic; we have a government which seems to be hell-bent on pushing it as the Americans want it to be.
Sir, what are you saying? On one hand you are convinced (as many of us are) that the intent of the UPA Govt and particularly the PoV espoused by MMS and his choicest people (SMK etc) seems to be that of "pushing it as the Americans want it to be"
OTOH you question the hulla gulla? Which clearly brings more and not less focus on the issue of Nuclear liability wavier.
So there are two options
1) Some one put up the Courts and the media to highlight the issue now so as to highlight the ill effects to the bill.
2) A framework by the Gov to ensure that the bill is passed under "we cant help it this is the best the law has"
IPC Section 71. Limit of punishment of offence made up of several offences
Where anything which is an offence is made up of parts, any of which parts is itself an offence, the offender shall not be punished with the punishment of more than one of such his offences, unless it be so expressly provided.
1[Where anything is an offence falling within two or more separate definitions of any law in force for the time being by which offences are defined or punished, or
Where several acts, of which one or more than one would by itself or themselves constitute an offence, constitute, when combined, a different offence,
The offender shall not be punished with a more severe punishment then the Court which tries him could award for any one such offences.]
This is one provision which limits powers of the court to a great extent.
Cr P C 31. Sentence in cases of conviction of several offences at one trial.
(1) When a person is convicted at one trial of two or more offences, the court may, subject to the provisions of section 71 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), sentence him for such offences, to the several punishments, prescribed therefore which such court is competent to inflict; such punishments when consisting of imprisonment to commence the one after the expiration of the other in such order as the court may direct, unless the court directs that such punishments shall run concurrently.
(2) In the case of consecutive sentences, it shall not be necessary for the Court by reason only of the aggregate punishment for the several offences being in excess of the punishment, which it is competent to inflict on conviction of a single offence, to send the offender for trial before a higher court:
Provided that-
(a) In no case shall such person be sentenced to imprisonment for a longer period than fourteen years;
(b) The aggregate punishment shall not exceed twice the amount of punishment, which the court is competent to inflict for a single offence.
(3) For the purpose of 'appeal by a convicted person, the aggregate of the consecutive sentences passed against him under this section shall be deemed to be a single sentence.
I understand that in USA punishment is provided for each count of offense and punishments run consecutively unless specifically provided for. That is why, we see for some offenses punishment given runs into 40 years or 100 years and even more.Here, in India , there is limitation by Law. Take Bhopal case, once the offence was converted to 403A court could not grant more that 2 years of punishment , though the cumulative offense is far greater in magnitude. One death by negligence or 15000 deaths by negligence would not attract any greater punishment.
Besides the concept of vicarious liability is mentioned here. Vicarious Liability arises only when cause is attributed to the person who is vicariously liable.Vicarious liability is not an easy thing to prove. One needs to prove the person is responsible for taking a decision which had the effect of criminality leading to the crime said to have been perpetrated.
These things need greater amount of discussion and this thread is not suitable.
