India Nuclear News And Discussion

[somnath]

somnath-ji,
I am not so sure about it.

Sanatanan-ji, what then was the reason for choosing the GE BWR design after a reasonably extensive due diligence? What then, was the purpose of negotiating follow-up purchases of the same design? Something that fell through only on acount of safeguards conditions...

BTW, I do think that the nuclear scientists then wanted to expose themselves and the country to as many designs as was economiclly feasible, so that India could come up with its own optimal in the times to come..Which is why we had GE and CANDU..Things turned out differently due to the complications around the strategic programme, but not before we had working reactors of both designs setup in the country...

I think it is the same thought process governing LWRs - they want to study as many of the so-called Gen III rectors as possible, and then come up with an Indian version in the times to come...JMT..

[Sanku]

Thats for tearing apart yet another blatant lie Sananatan-ji.

[GuruPrabhu]

On top of which; LWRs like the ones in Fukushima need enriched uranium; which require enrichment plants and therefore also more radioactive waste ...

That makes no sense. What radioactive waste?

[vina]

That’s right: CANDUs cannot melt down, even if all safety systems fail and the reactor looses all of its heavy water.

Not true! CANDUs will melt just like the reactor in Fukushima is suspected to have done and by the same mechanism, namely decay heat. The cooling should be on all the time. In a CANDU, the primary coolant and moderator is the heavy water. Sure, if you lose heavy water, the nuke chain reaction will stop (no moderator), but the loss of coolant problem will still be there and the core will melt if something is not done.

[Sanku]

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/ ... 323bc.html

Nuclear power no solution

In fact, after being constant at 16 to 17 percent from 1986 to 2005, the contribution of nuclear power in global electricity actually has dropped to 14 percent since then.

International studies have shown that nuclear power, although a 50-year-old mature technology, has demonstrated the slowest "rate of learning" in comparison to other energy sources, including newer technologies such as wind power and combined-cycle gas turbines. Nuclear power remains highly capital-intensive. It has high up-front capital costs, long lead times for construction and commissioning, and drawn-out amortization periods that put off private investors.

Tcchh tcchh, so much so for Nuclear power is the solution peddlers.

[vina]

So therefore, HWRs like CANDUs entail less waste and pose lesser proliferation concerns.

Not true again I am afraid. See, because CANDUs don't use enriched fuel, the flip side is that the fuel rods need to be replaced at much more frequent intervals (sort of like my 5 month old kid going through his diapers) and that is why the CANDU design (along with the Chernobyl type RMBK ) has on power refueling facility , without the need for the reactor to be shut down. For a PWR/BWR types, you load the fuel , shut the reactor tight and open it again only when you need to refuel again.

This process produces large amounts of plutonium (large amounts of fertile U-238 getting irradiated in a ultra neutron rich environment, than what the PWR/LWR where the U-238 amount is much less.. you just load and shut and open after all the jazz is over) , a key proliferation risk and also associated waste coz of large amounts of material going through the reactor!

[arnab]

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/ ... 323bc.html

Nuclear power no solution



Tcchh tcchh, so much so for Nuclear power is the solution peddlers.

Who has written that article? I mean wind power seriously !!

[Sanku]

Who has written that article? I mean wind power seriously !!

I am enjoying the takleef the data point of declining share of Nuclear power is causing.

After all, facts are facts.

[arnab]

Who has written that article? I mean wind power seriously !!

I am enjoying the takleef the data point of declining share of Nuclear power is causing.

After all, facts are facts.

I know - but the thing about 'share' is that there is a numerator and a denorminator. Hence these things are relative. I'm afraid it will always be a better alternative than ..er..wind power

[GuruPrabhu]

Count me in the takleef brigade. I am an unabashed proponent of nuke power and any half-baked argument against it causes me major takleef. Brahma C., IMO, is a half-baked joker in the pack. Does he really think that wind power is a serious alternative? My goodness! That is indeed cause for gigantic takleef because the joker has a media platform from which to spew nonsense.

[Sanku]

I know - but the thing about 'share' is that there is a numerator and a denorminator. Hence these things are relative. I'm afraid it will always be a better alternative than ..er..wind power

Wow a numerator and denominator!! Shocking, shocking. You mean to say that the fact that nuclear energy as proportion of world energy, needs a numerator and denominator?

How would have thought of it. What an eye opener I say!!

I am speechless.

[arnab]

Wow a numerator and denominator!! Shocking, shocking. You mean to say that the fact that nuclear energy as proportion of world energy, needs a numerator and denominator?

How would have thought of it. What an eye opener I say!!

I am speechless.

Well from your posts it appears you are anti 'nuke energy provided by US suppliers' (not anti radiation per se, since it has been shown elsewhere that coal fired plants release far more radiation into the atmosphere). So what you would want in order to support your point of view is an 'absolute' decline in nuke power generation and not a 'relative' decline as a proportion of total global energy, because nuke energy is not only capital intensive (As BC points out), it is also knowledge intensive. So was helping you out

[Sanku]

>> So what you would want in order to support your point of view is an 'absolute' decline in nuke power generation and not a 'relative' decline as a proportion of total global energy

No for my point that is enough. Let us just say that there is no harm if India follows the global trend of reducing % of nuclear power.

[arnab]

>> So what you would want in order to support your point of view is an 'absolute' decline in nuke power generation and not a 'relative' decline as a proportion of total global energy

No for my point that is enough. Let us just say that there is no harm if India follows the global trend of reducing % of nuclear power.

Then you shouldn't worry I think DAE calculations show that even by 2030, nuke energy would only account for around 3 % of India's total energy production.

[Sanku]

Then you shouldn't worry I think DAE calculations show that even by 2030, nuke energy would only account for around 3 % of India's total energy production.

Yes, I only worry that "magical energy" is not sold to get the LWRs in.

[arnab]

Then you shouldn't worry I think DAE calculations show that even by 2030, nuke energy would only account for around 3 % of India's total energy production.

Yes, I only worry that "magical energy" is not sold to get the LWRs in.

Be specific - you mean only the US LWRs Even though their safety features are superior to the Russian VVERs, the EPRs and our very own PHWRs.

[Sanku]

Be specific - you mean only the US LWRs Even though their safety features are superior to the Russian VVERs, the EPRs and our very own PHWRs.

Wrong on all counts as usual.

[somnath]

The issue of whether nuclear power is a "solution" is a huge red herring...Especially because it starts off with a presumption that there is a silver bullet solutio n to energy issues and nuclear is a contender...Neither of the two is justifiable..

Wind Power? Obviously the author hasnt gone through the reams of newsprint generated on tabulating the environmental issues with windpower...

Above all, is wind power a base load source? Or a peak load source? What is the economic cost of windpower generation, minus govt subsidies? How scalable is windpower? these are all independently key questions to be addressed..The answers will point out to one basic fact - it isnt silver bullet..Nothing is...An energy mix, suitable to a set of circumstances is...

the reason why nuclear power has gone down as a % of total power is two-fold:

1. the enormous thermal power capacity build-up in China, and to a lesser extent India - which has taken the denominator dramatically up..
2. The same two countries, India and China, have been relatively slow to ramp up on nuke power till now..And existing nuke power countries, like France and Germany dont have the large hikes in power demand to necessitate new capacity..

the ratios will go up again as new plants come up rapidly in China and India..

[somnath]

The press handling of nuclear power issues is *atrocious*! This compels me to clarify: There is a BIG safety difference between the enriched uranium-fuelled, light water reactors (LWRs) like the ones in Fukushima (and the ones made by GE/Hitachi, Westinghouse and Areva), and the natural (un-enriched) uranium-fuelled, heavy water reactors (HWRs) like AECL’s CANDUs. Simply put, if the LWRs lose their cooling water, the reaction runs out of control until you get a melt-down. By comparison, if HWRs like the CANDUs lose their heavy water, the reaction stops automatically.

That’s right: CANDUs cannot melt down, even if all safety systems fail and the reactor looses all of its heavy water. To be sure, CANDUs do have safety concerns, most notably their inherent production of tritium. But this problem has now been solved by in-line ‘detritiation’ technologies, which were pioneered by Indian nuclear scientists operating CANDU-type reactors. (Note: Tritium is the primary fuel of experimental fusion reactors like ITER, which may one day provide for all of humanity’s energy needs.)

On top of which; LWRs like the ones in Fukushima need enriched uranium; which require enrichment plants and therefore also more radioactive waste, and also the potential for nuclear weapons proliferation. Conversely, HWRs can run on un-enriched (natural) uranium, or even on cheaper and more plentiful alternatives like thorium, without the need for an enrichment plant.

So therefore, HWRs like CANDUs entail less waste and pose lesser proliferation concerns. For this reason, among many other unique features of CANDUs (such as online refuelling, the ability to burn ‘spent’ fuel from other reactors, or even generate power from decommissioned nuclear warheads); I believe that the “nuclear renaissance” will eventually demonstrate a preference for AECLs technologies, once all of the dust has settled from the Fukushima disaster.

[/quote]
Ravi-ji,
1. I asked this of Ramana, so are you saying that CANDUs cannot have a LOCA? And if heavy water is drained out, what cools the reactor core (even if the reaction has technically stopped)?

2. LWRs use LEUs - what radioactive "waste" are you referring to? And PHWRs dont generate radioactive waste?! In fact that is the biggest point of contenion around reprocessing which is why India was so insistent on getting reprocessing rights for all nuclear fuel..

3. CANDUs have "less" proliferation concerns? Sir, you have just said something opposite to what vina and ramana had said sometime back - LWRs are proliferation resistant...(I see vina has since changed his opinion!)...Any reactor, LWR, PHWR, BWR - whtever, can be potential source of proliferation...As long as it generates Pu, you can reprocess it to WGPu - what you need is a reprocessing plant, which has gotten smaller and smller over time...Heck, if you are smart enough even RGPu is good enough to make a bomb, as India (apparently) can

[ramana]

Somnath, CANDU can have loca ie loss of coolant accident. But in that case the CANDU/PHWR vessel floods and core in not exposed.
You need to look at a good picture/graphic of the three types of reactors :PWR, BWR and PHWR.

As for dichotomy between Ravi's and mine/vina is that its a matter of power. Wehn operated at low power you get poo. If opertate at high power you get reacotr grade poo that is unstable and needs extra measures. In that sense its proliferation resistant.

r poo is not good stuff.

[ramdas]

1. RGPu indeed has its disadvantages (radioactivity also means RGPu-based weapons are easier for someone like unkil to detect).

2. PHWRs are dual-use capable. More than that, PHWRs are a technology our establishment is familiar with and do not come with the political baggage LWRs from the west (or even Russia) come with.

3. As far as I can see, the only benefit of the N-deal is access to uranium for the civilian sector till we open our own mines to tide over the shortage.

4. The negative point is that the outside world has a greater leverage on us when it comes to pressurizing us on a CTBT/FMCT. This pressure can be negated if GoI is absolutely committed to avoiding these treaties under all circumstances (including backtracking on cooperation by foriegn partners in the n-power sector).

5. It has to be kept in mind that the established powers will try all means to curtail our military n-potential. Such attempts must be foiled. Our stand should be "no CTBT until a further round of tests and no FMCT until the next 25years". If this leads to stoppage of foreign support for the n-power sector, so be it. The deal would have benefited us till it lasted...

[arnab]

Wrong on all counts as usual.

Hmm let me see now - your 'predictions' earlier from which you seem to be currently doing a downhill sking from included:

1. Reactor explosion is imminent;
2. Reactor meltdown is imminent;
3. cover up is imminent;
4. 'western' newspapers are actually underplaying the extent of 'true' damage;
5. PHWR is 'safer' than LWR

So the 'as usual' phrase should apply to someone else out here. I think it is time for you to quickly do a self citation of 'see I have been right about stuff' some where on the forum

Oh I notice you have already done it on the 2G thread

[somnath]

As for dichotomy between Ravi's and mine/vina is that its a matter of power. Wehn operated at low power you get poo. If opertate at high power you get reacotr grade poo that is unstable and needs extra measures. In that sense its proliferation resistant.
r poo is not good stuff.

Ramana-ji, low power operation generates WGPu - that much even a "non-backgrounded" person like me knows...Issue however is, 1) there is enough experience around the world to fashion warheads out of RGPu, and 2) there is nothing stopping an operator of a plant from running the reactor at low power for the obvious reasons...We ourselves have designated eight of our reactors to be outside IAEA purview - cant assume that was done just to show everyone we have lots of reactors outside the IAEA safeguards!

CANDU can have loca ie loss of coolant accident. But in that case the CANDU/PHWR vessel floods and core in not exposed

Maybe you can explain this a little more? A LOCA in a PHWR, the heavy water is drained out..Which means that the reaction technically stops...But what would "flood" the containment vessel in order to cool the core?

Ramdas-ji,

there isnt a lot preventing LWRs from being "dual-use" as well...Iran's "dual use" programme is based on the premise of an LWR, isnt it? Not sure what is the specific "political baggage" with LWRs you are referring to...If it is about safeguards, well, we make a conscious decision on how many reactors should be under safeguards and how many should not...In any case, for India, the LWRs are meant to augment NPP capacities (from the puny 220 and 540 MW that we have today)...We have a choice on the number of reactors we want - seems we want a piece of every tech available ...The benefit of the nuke deal is not at a transactional level of suply of fuel, though that is also a good reason (I was going through Perkovich's book last night after the match , and he mentions how Indian reactors operated @ 40% capacity, way below what is economically feasible - this was in 1999)...The bigger deal about the "deal" is in getting India integrated into the global high table on nuke matters - deciding policy..And the genie is now out of the box - even if the US wants, it cannot chuck us out easily..Just as it required an enormous international consensus to get us "in", it will take the same consensus to throw us "out"...The latter is just not possible, not with our status in the world today...So I wouldnt worry too much about CTBT/FMCT et al....

[somnath]

...The fact is that we had a planned nuclear power programme that was supposed to be based on the GE BWRs...

somnath-ji,
I am not so sure about it.

Thanks to this discussion, went through GP's book again last nght (after the match!)...The GE reactors were signed off on post extensive negotiations (there was a competing design from General Atomics too), and the reactors were accompanied by a generous funding deal from the US...there was also a strenuous agreement reached on safeguards, which was quite complicated...CANDUs were also signed off around the same time...While the CANDU was supposed to kick-start the so-called 3 cycle programme and hence more important, the American reactors were as integral to the nuke power plans...As the Americans strted asking for more intrusive safeguards, any follow-on deal fell through...There was no "safety" aspect of the choice made..

[ramana]

Somnath,



See the fuel bundle is at the bottom. Unlike in LWRs.

[ramana]

PWR:



See the core drains if there is a loca,

[ramana]

BWR:

[Sanku]

Kya yaar, now I have to explain the difference between prediction and statement.

Hmm let me see now - your 'predictions' earlier from which you seem to be currently doing a downhill sking from included:

1. Reactor explosion is imminent;

Already happened, the containment chamber is damaged for reactor 2.

2. Reactor meltdown is imminent;

Yes, it has happened, the reactor got too hot and blew up the gases being generated damaging the outer containment.

3. cover up is imminent;

No not imminent. It is on going, it had happened in the past before this disaster, and I have posted reports as to how the Nuke chief broke down and cried and accepted that they were indeed releasing insufficient evidence earlier.

But I think they have still not learned their lessons.

4. 'western' newspapers are actually underplaying the extent of 'true' damage;

Yes they are, this is not a prediction either this is a observation on current situation, because the Japanese were not forthcoming with information, backed by say so of many neutral Nuclear experts.

5. PHWR is 'safer' than LWR

Again this is not a prediction, but a statement, and as it happens with tons of material saying why,

The following may help
http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/prediction

1 [count] : a statement about what will happen or might happen in the future

And yes, you are right, I do have the curse of being able to read the data accurately much before others do. In the past people like me were burned in Europe.

[amit]

And yes, you are right, I do have the curse of being able to read the data accurately much before others do. In the past people like me were burned in Europe.

This doesn't happen often. But I'm speechless.

And this was supposed to be a thread for serious discussion.

In a matter of few days Sanku as gone from being a defender of indigenous nuclear technology, particularly PHWR, to being against US-design LWRs to now a wannabe Greenpeace activist who's totally against nuclear power!

[somnath]

Ramana-ji,

Thanks for the schematics..But question is - how does the PWR design cool the core once the coolant is drained? What "floods" the containment vessel?\

And this was supposed to be a thread for serious discussion.

???The seriousness got lost many pages back

[amit]

???The seriousness got lost many pages back

Actually not. If you filter out the ambient noise generated in the name of witchcraft, I think a very interesting discussion is going on in this thread and in the Japan Nook thread.

[somnath]

^^^Was referring to the "ambient noise" only!

[somnath]

Ramana-ji,

some basic googling throws up interesting pointers to handling of LOCA situations in Indian PHWRs..

http://aris.iaea.org/ARIS/download.cgi? ... output=pdf
http://www.vaec.gov.vn/Userfiles/image/ ... LVHONG.pdf

The primary emergency system (ECCS) depends on a variety of active (and passive) measures to cool the reactor core if the situation develops...

[ramdas]

Somnathji

Indeed it will take a huge effort to chuck us "out". In other words, does this mean that even if we resist FMCT (in the event of TSP resistance ceasing) uncompromisingly and conduct another round of tests, throwing us off the official high table is more or less impossible ?

In any case, if we resist the FMCT and conduct some more nuclear tests (till our scientific community is completely convinced of our thermonuclear ability), the expulsion from the high table (if at all it occurs) will be temporary. For one, once we are decisively convinced of our thermonuclear capability, CTBT would no longer be objectionable. So, on that front, we will be able to afford "good behavior". As our deterrent is built up, a point will be reached where it makes no sense to keep a country with an arsenal of several hundred weapons off the high table.

This we must realise. In fact, as TSP's buildup continues, it is only a matter of time before TSP is also inducted into the high table with no commitments of good behavior from its side.

[amit]

^^^^^^

Ramdas ji,

Sorry to butt in but I have to say I agree with most of what you've written, save this:

This we must realise. In fact, as TSP's buildup continues, it is only a matter of time before TSP is also inducted into the high table with no commitments of good behavior from its side.

IMHO this will never happen. TSP was allowed to get nuclear weapons for a reason and that reason was not so that they could eventually gatecrash to the high table and get all the benefits thereon. If that happens the high table itself will become meaningless. I don't think even China wants that.

Nope TSP is kept armed and dangerous to be a counterweight to you know whom. But that's just about it.

JMT

[ramdas]

Amitji,

My mistake. You are right about TSP. I did have another thought. These stories about TSP's current advantage over us could well be to push TSP towards removing its objections to the FMCT. There was a conference in Islamabad where NPA Mark Hibbs said something like "India will have a 300-400 weapon triad in 10 years though TSP currently has more holdings than India....India's holdings must be capped at the current level, etc...". This is an indication that they want TSP to stop objecting to FMCT so that the FMCT heat will be on us.

[somnath]

Indeed it will take a huge effort to chuck us "out". In other words, does this mean that even if we resist FMCT (in the event of TSP resistance ceasing) uncompromisingly and conduct another round of tests, throwing us off the official high table is more or less impossible ?

Ramdas-ji, we need to understand what constitutes the "high table" - this lies at the heart of the nuclear deal..First up, the nuke deal brings us back into the legit global nuke trade - this is a "privilege" accorded to most countries in the world, barring a few "rogue" states, Israel and Pakistan...With the deal, India is "out" of the morass effectively..This isnt a high table, just getting back at a level of, say, New Zealand...It allows us to enter into 123-type agreements with every country which has anything to trade - US to Kazakhstan...

But the next things are more interesting, and constitutes the "high table"...One, India enters the global nuclear "club" as a certified nuke weapons state - admittedly not in NPT terms, but for all manner and purposes, a country that posseses nuclear weapons...Which makes us only the 6th state in the world to have that privilege...This is the real deal - this is why the US had to spend so much political capital (we wanted a "clean" waiver, rmeember?)...There is absolutely zero appetite in the international system to give that waiver to any other country...It will be impossible to build consensus around anyone else, certainly not Pakistan...

And "consensus" is where the next stage comes in...Part of the deal is the US-sponsorship of India to the 4 multilateral export control regimes — the Nuclear Suppliers Group, the Missile Technology Control Regime, the Australia Group and the Wassenaar Group...NSG is the big one, and the ball has been set in motion...Once we are there, the "consensus" will need us to agree!

Now, how does that affect our position on FMCT/CTBT? Not too much...First, there is no agreement among even the principals on the contours of the treaties..Second, even if for argument's sake US tried to put India back in the "doghouse" in a fit of pique, what does it have to do? It has to convince Russia, France, UK and 40 odd other states to rescind the "clean" NSG waiver to India...I that a plausible scenario? Not really...what it can do is to scsuttle our membership of the export control regimes..Which is why we are hurrying to finish the formalities on them...

For Pak, FMCT is a death trap...Even after signing the FMCT, it does not get anything tangible in return on nuke trade..But it caps its own fissile material at current levels...India, on the other hand can use every single pound of Pu (R and W) it has for our weapons programme - and that is already enough for 300 warheads? We can run our power proramme exclusively on imported fuel with several 123s been signed up...which is precisely why Pak is not willing to sign up...Lets see if they do...I am sure the conditions under which they do will give us enough reaosns to backtrack as well

[amit]

Amitji,

My mistake. You are right about TSP. I did have another thought. These stories about TSP's current advantage over us could well be to push TSP towards removing its objections to the FMCT. There was a conference in Islamabad where NPA Mark Hibbs said something like "India will have a 300-400 weapon triad in 10 years though TSP currently has more holdings than India....India's holdings must be capped at the current level, etc...". This is an indication that they want TSP to stop objecting to FMCT so that the FMCT heat will be on us.

Possible.

However, I personally think all this talk about TSP having more bombs than us SDREs could have been an effort by NPAs to get us to reveal how many we actually have. As far as I know the NPA estimates are badly out of date.

I have a theory that this effort to get us to spill the beans could have originated from what, to an outsider, must have seemed as a fracture in the Indian nuclear security establishment when the spat about the thermo-nukes was going on after Santhanam's revelations.

Sometimes, for outsiders, it is hard to comprehend that Argumentative Indians can publicly quarrel among themselves while still batting together for a common objective. Again, personal conjecture, but I think it was no coincidence that the Indian security establishment's "rejoinder" to desh khatre mein hai from the Pak bombs spiel was delivered by none other than Santhanam himself!

I think that just shows that the dhoti-clad shivering SDREs that make up our nuke security establishment saw through the TFTA strategy.

JMT, take it for what it's worth.

[somnath]

However, I personally think all this talk about TSP having more bombs than us SDREs could have been an effort by NPAs to get us to reveal how many we actually have. As far as I know the NPA estimates are badly out of date

IMO India isnt the "target" of these estimates, its Pakistan...The immediate NP imperative now for the US is to get FMCT signed up..Optically at least, Pak is the only country holding out...these estimates are meant to create pressure on Pak to sign up, as they purportedly have more than enough!

How many do we have? there is no way anyone outside the closest establishment circles could know...What can be estimated with some measure of credibility is production of fissile material..And there, India's legacy and current rate of production by al estimates, NPAs and others, is way ahead...

[amit]

IMO India isnt the "target" of these estimates, its Pakistan...The immediate NP imperative now for the US is to get FMCT signed up..Optically at least, Pak is the only country holding out...these estimates are meant to create pressure on Pak to sign up, as they purportedly have more than enough!

Somnath,

I've heard this argument before but to be frank, I'm not really convinced. The reason is that all this is underpinned by the assumption that Pakistan is a rational player in the nuclear stakes game. The only people who will know the exact number of working bombs in Pak's possession would the Paki jernails.

Let's assume that they have 100 bombs and all of them work and that they've been sold the lemon that what they have is far more than what India has. But why should they be expected stop at 100 when we know that the bomb is almost like a phallic symbol for their manhood?

Let's take for argument's sake that Pakis say that they will sign FMCT because they have 100 bombs, enough to take out India and far more than what India has. Now how will they be assured that India will also sign the FMCT the day after they sign?

Also, the point I made about rationality comes into play here. We have to assume that there must be some among the inner circle of the Pak military who are totally Talibanised and think of the Pak bomb as the Ummah bomb. For them the calculation would be the Ummah bomb (+ Chinese maal and Korean maal) vs kuffir bombs. Is the "so-called rational or practical" group within the decision making circle powerful enough to silence this group which surely exists?

You may be right but I feel there are too many ifs and buts in this scenario to be one on which the NP lobby would invest time and money.

On the other hand India is a downright rational player and it appeared that there was a "rift" in the closely-knit strategic community in India just before these reports surfaced. Creating a hysteria in India about the Pakis having more bombs could have been done with the objective that the "dissident" group with the establishment might spill out the number of bombs India has.

It's pure speculation on my part but I personally think the fact that Santhanam made that comment instead of someone like Kakodhkar (remember he's retired so also outside the official establishment, like Santhanam) is rather significant. I feel more than the message it's the messenger who sent out the signal that was desired.