26 February 2015

Will the real scientific community please stand up? – Vijay Asokan & G Sundarrajan

This is apropos of Prof Jayaraman’s "Tunnel vision block neutrino lab progress" piece that had appeared in the Times of India edition dated February 23, 2015.(An edited version of this article has been published in the Times of India dated February 26, 2015)


Let us begin by addressing the age-old question of scientific versus non-scientific temper. By putting the scientific temper on a pedestal, the author seeks to belittle the concerns of the poor and the vulnerable sections of the society that his organization claims to be standing for.  Unscientific as it may be, the concerns of the people living in the vicinities of projects such as Neutrino and who are expected to bear the brunt of its consequences, needs a sensitive and a humane approach that the author sadly seems to be lacking. The tone of arrogance that pervades throughout the article is too scientific and un-Marxist, to say the least.

Which scientific community, the author says, stand insulted by our claims? The same community that takes miniature models of satellites and orbiters to Tirupathi to invoke the blessings of the almighty for the projects to be successful? Can any other gesture be more insulting to science? The scientific community, atleast in India, has been anything but rational. In fact, rationalism in India, more particularly in Tamil Nadu, has thrived among the ordinary citizens who ‘woefully lack the scientific temper.’ Only in India, science has also become a superstition. We really wish the Science forum had taken up issues such as this and work for the prevalence of real scientific temper instead of mocking at the fears and concerns of ordinary people.

The author says there is no basis for groundwater resources being endangered. The entire Western Ghats are aquifiers and birth place for the peninsular rivers. All we say and still maintain is that the groundwater resources will be depleted if the project is implemented. Also, the Western Ghats where Pottipuram lies has been declared by UNESCO as an ecologically sensitive area. Has the ‘scientific community’ taken cognizance of this fact before embarking on the project? Or the fact that Pottipuram is an aquifier zone? The ‘scientific community’ claims that there will be no negative effect to the aquifers and nearby dams due to the vibrations caused by blasting the rocks. But the water that is stored in nearby streams or other surface-water bodies commonly connected hydraulically with the bedrock fracture system. Leaching and dissolution of chemicals from blasting material will possibly interact with rock-water interfaces which will impact the ground water chemical composition. The change in composition will easily spread to nearby water streams and surface-water bodies.

We would like to know if there is any report that has studied the effect of remaining nitrates or other chemicals to the ground water or wells nearby. We understand that the environmental impact studies related to the effect on ground water relating mineral composition deposits and chemicals from rock blast has not been done. We demand that modeling studies related to the possible man-made seismic events and possibility of tectonic fracturing during blasting be done and the local people be given access to the documents.  

Also is there any environmental monitoring group appointed to do simulation studies considering the possible and future environmental effects?

Japan’s seisimic department has announced that the earthquake that hit the north east part of Japan Feb 17, 2015 was an aftershock of 2011 earthquake that caused the Fukushima disaster. However protected the environs of the project in whatever way, it has been proved that blasting seriously disturbs the geological set up of any area. The result of the blastings need not be necessarily available immediately. As illustrated by the Fukushima disaster, it might take years to see the effects. Will the scientific community accept that shockwaves produced as result of a quake or a blast in minimal form is not preventable? The waves whatever may be their strength, will certainly impact the adjoining areas.  At sub surface any disturbed geological structure is highly unstable and no one can predict the time of the destruction.  

Is the author aware that the EIA developed by the project proponent (available at its website) says: “The experts are hopeful that during its normal operation phase, the laboratory is not expected to cause any damage to the environment. However, there is no detailed study regarding the impact of blasting of a large quantity of rock on the aquifer, the rivers and the reservoirs in the Environment Impact Assessment”.

In a response written by INO team in 2012 to the article “India Based Neutrino Observatory: Potential Geological, Radiological And Biological Impacts” dated 26, September, 2012 placed on ‘Countercurrents.org’ by Mr. V.T.Padmanabhan, MA, it is clearly mentioned that no neutrinos from Neutrino factories will be beamed towards INO site being constructed at Theni, Tamil Nadu. But in a response dated 15, November, 2012, the INO team said there is nothing wrong in such collaborations and further admits that in the second phase of works, neutrinos will be beams from the Neutrino Factory.  A mail by Mr. N.K. Mondal to Mr. Sundarajan (one of the authors of this response) dated 30, January, 2015, again confirms that the neutrino detectors  to be placed at Theni will be detecting only atmospheric neutrinos and argued that the plan for construction of neutrino factories is only at theoretical stage and not relevant to INO. Don’t we see a flip-flop?

The first proposal for INO project for funding was first dated in the year 2005. This year in particular is worth noted in scientific community because of the first proposal of International design study – Neutrino factory (IDS-NF), showing the target (detector) for neutrino beam generated in neutrino factory is kept at around 7500 KM from the neutrino factory (planned at Chicago).

In November 2009, Pier Oddone appointed Sanjib Mishra, University of South Carolina and Brajesh Choudhary, University of Delhi as Technical Project Coordinator for the development and execution of the Indian Institutions and Fermilab Collaboration on Neutrino Physics. Later that month Indian Institutions and Fermilab collaboration signed the addendum MOU IV for neutrino collaboration that included MINOS, NOVA, LBNE and MIPP experiments”

This confirms the connection of INO to Fermilab and IDS-NF, since the experiments of MINOS, NOVA, LBNE and MIPP are the part of IDS-NF project. Further, could anyone answer what is the relation of INO to magic baseline terms? It is not only massive iron calorimeter detector that INO is going to setup. It is the first detector in the world at present to detect neutrinos from the neutrino factories far away from 7500 KMs.

The documentation released by IDS-NF in February 2010, stating the meeting held between IDS-NF and Tata Institute for fundamental research (TIFR) in November 2009, shows that the discussion particularly focused on the 50k tonne magnetized iron calorimeter, emphasized the current status of prototype construction, and confirming the possibilities of such detectors to receive neutrinos far from 7500KMs.

Mr Jayaraman speaks of delay in the project conveniently side-stepping the fact that the delay was more due to his own scientific fraternity and hardly had anything to do with the opposition to the project. The author claims China has marched ahead in the research due to this delay. Will the scientific community say the same thing about China’s AT&C (aggregate technical & commercial loss) in electricity distribution which varies from 4% to 8% while in India it is 30%- 40%?  China has started producing 10w ceiling fans when India is still discussing about 35w Fans. Was this also because of the lack of scientific temper?

In a country which still has about 8 lakh manual scavengers, it is not a shame that a whopping Rs 10000 crore is spent on two projects of DAE including the neutrino observatory?

The author has also cleverly sidestepped the issue of Pottipuram being turned into India’s Deep Geological Repository that will house the Nuclear waste generated in India including Koodankulam. We were aware of this only through the proposal from a website of the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority which said that the application was submitted under Nuclear waste management category for the INO project. After the issue was raised by us, it was brushed aside as a clerical mistake. But we still feel it was ‘testing the water of sorts’ and was given up after a hue and cry. 

The author does not only have more than enough of scientific temper but seems to have acquired legal temper too in advising the courts on deciding the fate of petitions. We do hope the courts will be concerned about the people unlike the scientific communities of India. It is the same ‘scientific community’ that is pathetically indifferent to the plight of the people who suffer because of pollution of all kinds and have turned a blind eye to the concerns of common people. How are we expected to trust the same scientific community to be concerned about people of pottipuram alone?

While the scientific community thinks it fit to invoke the Lord in Tirupathi for their missions to be successful, let me take the liberty to invoke George Bernard Shaw to instill some ‘people’s sense into the scientific community. “Science is always wrong,” Shaw famously proclaimed in a toast to Albert Einstein. “It never solves a problem without creating 10 more.”

Of course, as long as it is right to the cause of ordinary people, we will never say that science is wrong. 


(Vijay Asokan is a research student in Nano physics group at The University of Bergen, Norway and G Sundarrajan is an engineer and a volunteer with Poovulagin Nanbargal, TN based environmental movement.)

19 September 2013

Quarrying within 5 Kms. radius of Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant - Madras High Court Order

Madras High Court
V.Ganesan vs The District Collector on 19 October, 2010
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 19/10/2010

CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU

W.P.(MD)No.10571 of 2007
and
M.P.(MD)No.1 OF 2007

V.Ganesan
 ... Petitioner

Vs

1.The District Collector,
Tirunelveli.

2.The Deputy Director of Mines and Geology,
Collectorate, Tirunelveli District.

3.The Project Director,
Nuclear Power Corporation of
India Limited (A Govt. of India Undertaking),
Koodankulam, Tirunelveli District.

4.A.K.A.Rajan
 .. Respondents


This writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent in M1/39272/06 dated 26.09.2007 quash the same from permitting the fourth respondent from quarrying within 5 Kms. radius of Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant in violation of G.O.Ms.No.829, dated 29.4.1991.

!For Petitioner ... Mr.T.S.R.Venkatramana
^For Respondents ... Mr.R.Janakiramulu, Spl.G.P. for R1 and 2 Mr.S.Ramasubramaniam for R-3
Mr.S.P.Maharajan for R-4

:ORDER
The petitioner has filed the present writ petition, seeking to set aside the order dated 26.09.2007 wherein and by which the fourth respondent was permitted to quarry. This challenge is on the ground that the quarrying area granted to the petitioner is situated within 5 kms radius of the Koodankulam Nuclear Power plant and such a grant of license is in violation of G.O.Ms.No.829 Public Works Department dated 29.04.1991.

2. Notice of motion was ordered on this writ petition on 14.12.2007. Pending the writ petition, this Court by an order dated 25.11.2008 appointed an Advocate Commissioner to visit the suit property and measure the property with the help of the Surveyor and to submit a report. Subsequently, by a further order dated 28.07.2009, the Taluk Surveyor of Irukkandurai and Koodankulam were directed to be present on 19.08.2009 at Irukkandurai Village in S.Nos.181/1, 183, 184/3, 184/7 and 185 along with respective Field Map Books.

3. The Advocate Commissioner so appointed submitted an interim report dated 10.12.2008 and a final report dated 26.08.2009. In the final report, he had stated that the disputed quarries in S.Nos. 181/1, 183, 184/3, 184/7 and 185 are all situated within the radius of 5 km from the Nuclear Reactor. He also submitted 3 Annexures along with the report.

4. On behalf of the first respondent, a counter affidavit dated 05.11.2008 was filed. The third respondent, Project Director of Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited had also filed a counter affidavit dated 15.11.2008 together with a typed set of documents containing the copy of minutes of Koodankulam Project Local Committee meeting held on 14.07.2006, 14.02.2007 and 15.02.2008. The fourth respondent quarrying operator had filed a counter affidavit dated 14.09.2008 as well as an additional counter affidavit dated 17.11.2008. He had also filed a typed set of documents dated 23.09.2008

5. The petitioner was a neighbouring land owner. According to the petitioner, by G.O.Ms.No.829 Public Works Department dated 29.04.1991, had prohibited any quarrying operation within 5 kms radius of the Nuclear Power Plant as it comes with the 'Sterilization zone' and any permission for any activity cannot be done without the concurrence of the Koodankulam Project Local Committee. The 4th respondent quarrying operation is not only within the prohibited zone, it will also destroy the Coconut Thoppu owned by him in the Irukkanthurai village. It is also brought to the notice that the Collector did not carry out the earlier order passed by this Court in W.P.No.3293 of 2005 for granting permission.

6. The first respondent in his counter affidavit denied these allegations. In paragraphs 4 and 5, it was averred as folows:-
4.It is respectfully submitted that the area applied for quarry lease was inspected by Tahsildar, Radhapuram, Revenue Divisional Officer, Cheranmahadevi and the Assistant Director of Geology and Mining, Tirunelveli and reported that the above lease applied areas are situated at a distance of 4.8 kilometres from the Atomic Reactor of Koodankulam Atomic Power Plant. Quarry lease for rough stone was granted earlier in favour of Tmt.Sakthi and the quarry lease had expired on 29.10.2003 and after the expiry of the lease Thiru AK.A.Rajan has purchased the above lands and applied for lease. Based on the reports of the field officers, who had recommended the quarry lease, after getting the clearance from Koodankulam Atomic Reactor Project Local Committee's concurrence. The Chairman, Koodankulam Project Local Committee and Project Engineer (Civil) Koodankulam Project, Nagercoil has been addressed as per this office letter No.M.1/39272/06 dated 02.06.2006 with a request to place the subject before "Koodankulam Project Local Committee" for clearance as per G.O.Ms.No.829 PWD Dated 29.04.1991. The Commissioner, Radhapuram Panchayat Union, Radhapuram, in his letter No.A4/3213/04, dated 14.08.2006 has stated that in the meeting of Koodankulam Project Local committee was conducted on 14.07.2006 and in the meeting the proposal of stone quarrying lease in S.F.NO.181/1, 183, 184/3 and 7 of Irukkanthurai Village, Radhapuram Taluk, placed and the committee has approved the grant of this proposal for the period upto 31.12.2007.

5.It is respectfully submitted that considering all the factors framed in the Rules and Acts in force, recommendations of the field officers, concurrence of the Koodankulam Project Local committee as per G.O.Ms.No.829 PWD dated 29.04.1991, the stone quarry lease to quarry rough stone/jelly over an extent of 5.24.0 hectares of patta lands in S.F.No.181/1, 183 and 185 of Irukkanthurai Part II Village, Radhapuram taluk, has been granted to the applicant and 4th respondent of this writ - Thiru AK.A.Rajan, son of A.Kirubanathi, 58, Veeramani Nagar, Kovilambakkam, Chennai -117 as per the Collector, Tirunelveli's order No.M.1/39272/06 dated 26.09.2006 for a period of five years from the date of execution of lease subject to the further approval of the Koodankulam Project Local committee, Koodankulam beyond 31.12.2007. Subsequently, the clearance of the local committee is being granted by the committee every year. Now the committee has given its clearance upto 28.02.2009. This is intimated by the Block Development Officer, Radhapuram vide his letter No.A4/3213/02 dated 18.09.2008.

7. The third respondent Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited, in their counter affidavit in paragraphs 9 and 10 averred as follows:- "9. ...The Kudankulam Local Committee met at Block Development Office on 14.07.2006. In that meeting, out of 07 members only 05 numbers of Committee members were present as per G.O. The Committee members recommended for Quarry Licence to Mr.A.K.A.Rajan under Survey No.181/1, 183, 184/3 and 184/7 at Irukkandurai Village up to a period of 31.12.2007. On 14.02.2007, Mr.A.K.A.Rajan (4th respondent) again applied for Quarry Mining under Survey No.181/2B. The Kudankulam Local Committee Members gave permission up to 28.02.2008 with a condition that if need arises within a short notice of one month the Quarry operation need to be suspended. On 15.02.2008, the Kudankulam Local Committee had given only an extension for a further period up to 28.02.2009.

10. Since Natural Growth cannot be prevented, Housing and Shops Construction requests are being normally recommended by the Kudankulam Local Committee. However, for some of the Quarry operation, it is also recommended by the Kudankulam Local Committee with an observation that the safety care has to be adhered without disturbing the nearby areas of the villagers. Based on the Dy.Director of Mines and Geology review and clearance in all these issues, an ultimate decision is being taken by the Collector after giving an opportunity of being heard by the affected persons as per G.O."

8. The Resolution of the Koodankulam Project Local committee dated 15.02.2008 produced in the typed set found at Pages 23 to 33 in Resolution No.5 has granted 'No Objection'. The Quarry operator in his additional counter affidavit had also raised the plea of alternative remedy for the petitioner to move in terms of Section 36-C(2) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules ,1959. He also denied that there was any violation in the quarrying operation to be carried out by him.

9. With reference to the violation of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.3293 of 2005, in Paragraph 11 of the counter, the District Collector, Tirunelveli had stated as follows:-
11. It is submitted that the order of the High Court of Madras, Madurai Bench, Madurai, in W.P.No.3293/2005 and Director of Geology and Mining, Chennai dated 01.06.2005 does not relate to this issue. In this case after obtaining the approval of the Koodankulam Project Local committee as per G.O.Ms.No.829 dated 29.04.1991, the stone quarry lease had been granted subject to further approval o the committee beyond 31.12.2007 and every year committee reviews its permission. No objection petitions was received on publication of 'A1" Notice in the village and the writ petitioner is the one and only person raising objection that to after a lapse of nearly two years from the date of grant of quarry lease in this area. Further it is state that no quarry lease has been granted in S.F.No.184/3 and 7 of Irukkanthurai II Village, Radhapuram Taluk."

10. G.O.Ms.No.829 Public Works Department ,dated 29.04.1991 in P.2(iii) gives discretion to the Collector for using the agricultural land for non- agricultural purpose or for executing any mining operations after consulting the Koodankulam Project Local committee and the same has been done in the present case as set out above.

11. Therefore, even if the Advocate Commissioner's finding was that the survey lands are situated within 5 kms radius from the Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant, since necessary approval from the committee has been obtained, the prayer made by the petitioner cannot be countenanced by this Court.

12. In the light of the above, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
svki
To
1.The District Collector,
Tirunelveli.
2.The Deputy Director of Mines and Geology,
Collectorate, Tirunelveli District.
3.The Project Director,
Nuclear Power Corporation of
India Limited (A Govt. of India Undertaking),
Koodankulam, Tirunelveli District.