Pakistan is not capable of keeping nuclear arms safe says top nuclear physicist

Shubhajit Roy


Posted: Mon Jun 27 2011, 03:24 hrs Islamabad:

Pakistan’s establishment lacks the ability to keep its nuclear weapons safe, says one of the country’s top nuclear experts, pointing out that the weapons are guarded by personnel of the Pakistan Army which has been infiltrated for decades by radical elements.

Pervez A Hoodbhoy, who teaches nuclear physics at Islamabad’s government-run Quaid-e-Azam University, spoke to The Indian Express in Islamabad. His comments came amid growing concerns on the safety of nuclear weapons in Pakistan.

“It doesn’t matter whether Pakistan’s chief of army staff Ashfaq Parvez Kayani swears on the Quran that he will make sure that nuclear weapons will be safe. The question is, does he have the power to do that?” said Hoodbhoy, 60, who has a PhD from MIT.

“It seems to me that the Pakistan Army is playing with fire. It knows that these nuclear weapons are ultimately in the hands of their own people and their own people have been affected by decades of radicalisation. They may claim that they have personnel reliability tests, but I don’t believe that answering questions on a form may indicate his intentions,” he said.

He dismissed Pakistan Interior (Home) Minister Rehman Malik’s recent assertion that the country’s nukes are 200 per cent safe. “Now Rehman Malik must be a genius to have come up with the figure of 200 per cent. How he arrives at that we have no idea, but that is what the Pakistan military wants us to believe and to unquestionably accept that the nuclear weapons have been provided security in Pakistan…which, personally I don’t believe,” he said.

“So to come up with wild figures, I don’t believe there is source of any reassurance to the people of Pakistan or to the thinking people. We have seen the infiltration of radicals into the ranks of the Army. Very recently, a brigadier and four majors have been arrested. And our brigadiers are in charge of missile regiments too. So where things could go, I don’t know.”

He said that the Pakistan establishment is in a “state of denial” in spite of the fact that there have been repeated attacks on the headquarters of the Army and the ISI.

The repeated assertion in Pakistan, he said, is that nuclear weapons have so many layers of security that it would be impossible to penetrate them. “But this is something that the world obviously questions,” he said, adding that the reason is no matter how many technical precautions you take, “ultimately, it is the people who handle the nuclear weapons, just as the people are responsible for the defence of the Army, Air Force and Navy bases”.

He referred to the recent attack on the Pakistan Navy airbase in Mehran, where a handful of people were “so well-informed by the insiders” that they managed to keep defenders at bay for over 18 hours, and destroyed two of Pakistan’s most valuable aircraft.

“So the worry that something similar may happen with the nuclear weapons crosses everybody’s mind… therefore, even if the strategic plans division says everything is fine, that does not reassure everybody.”

He said India and Pakistan “are locked in an arms race”, adding, “Pakistan is building as many nuclear weapons as it can. They have very little utility... they provide a cover under which (there is) yet another spurt of nuclear weapons production.”
SOUTH ASIANS AGAINST NUKES (SAAN):

An informal information platform for activists and scholars concerned about the dangers of Nuclearisation in South Asia

http://s-asians-against-nukes.org/

Scotland's Renewable Energy Project

Scotland could phase out all conventional fossil fuel and nuclear power stations by 2030, maintain a secure electricity supply, and generate revenue from renewable exports, according to new research by one of the world‟s leading energy consultants, Garrad Hassan.

“The Power of Scotland Secured”, (1) published by Friends of the Earth with backing from RSPB and WWF, sets out how Scotland could guarantee security of supply, while decarbonising half its total energy needs by 2030.

Friends of the Earth Scotland Chief Executive Duncan McLaren said: "We already know that renewables can grow to comfortably exceed our electricity demand by 2020. (2) What this report shows is that, contrary to popular myth, the variability of renewable power need not pose a threat to the reliability of our supply in Scotland. The transmission infrastructure required to keep the lights on at times of low renewables output will be easily justified by the value of exports which it will make possible at times of high output. Costs to consumers are unlikely to exceed those in other future scenarios.”

The report discusses the extensive use of electricity for heating, and it is assumed – in line with existing Scottish government targets - that just 11% of heat demand will be met from renewable sources by 2020, increasing to 40% by 2030. Using electric heat pumps to contribute to the renewable heat target would increase Scottish gross electricity consumption in 2030 by about 14% and would cut carbon emissions from heat by up to 60%. Heat pumps for heating can also be used to help smooth out demand thus helping manage daily peak demand. Given improved levels of insulation in line with energy saving targets, in winter there could be at least several hundred megawatts of deferrable electric heating demand in Scottish homes. However, unlike UK Government proposals which foresee the total electrification of heat by 2030 (3) this report discusses the role of anaerobic digestion, which the National Grid company says could provide almost half of UK domestic gas demand, and combined heat and power.

(1) The Power of Scotland Secured, report & summary, December 2010
http://www.foe-scotland.org.uk/sites/files/possv6final.pdf

(2) See for example Nuclear Free Local Authorities Briefing: Scotland‟s electricity needs, can they be met from renewable without recourse to nuclear? July 2010.

http://www.nuclearpolicy.info/docs/briefings/A191_(NB76)_Scotland_and_renewables.pdf

(3) See The All Electric Future, NuClear News No.24
http://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/nuclearnews/NuClearNewsNo24.pdf

Renewable Energy from the Mediterranean

The sea provides waves, marine currents and tides, all of which could produce energy. The saline gradient and the thermal gradient of the sea could also be used. These technologies are still at the experimental stage, although some countries like the UK, Norway, the US, Portugal, Canada and Japan are investing in research in them. Italian researchers have achieved a great deal in these fields and are well known internationally.

ENEA, Ente per le Nuove tecnologie, l'Energia e l'Ambiente (National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and the Environment) is the Italian Government sponsored research and development agency, originally set up to research atomic energy. Ever since the referendum 25 years ago, in which an overwhelming majority of Italians voted to shut down all nuclear power stations, ENEA has focussed on renewables. However, when Berlusconi announced a few years ago that he wanted to build a new fleet of nuclear power stations, ENEA funding was once again diverted away from renewables.

But Berlusconi did not get his own way. More than a million signatures were collected, enough for the people to demand a referendum on new nuclear. Despite all Berlusconi’s efforts to block the referendum, 57% of the Italian people voted and 97% of these voted against any form of new nuclear power.

As soon as the results of the referendum were made public, Vincenzo Artale, physicist and oceanographer for ENEA, called all the main Italian experts in the field of marine energy to come to a workshop in Rome, to discuss the prospects for the development of this energy sector.

“There are problems”, he said, “but 20 years ago the problems for wind turbines looked insurmountable”.

“We’re mapping the coast and the Italian seas with a grant of 500,000 euros from the Ministry of Economic Development. It’s not enough. The government should be investing a lot more,” he said. “Using wave and tidal power, countries like Scotland could produce enough energy for all their needs. In fact Scotland is working on under-sea barriers.”

Interviewer: “And in Italy Professor Artale?”

“The Mediterranean doesn’t have the same tidal energy as the north seas but there are optimum areas for exploiting tidal energy (which, unlike wind, is regular and energetically quantifiable. And waves. The Strait of Messina is a good place. There’s already a prototype turbine with vertical blades. It’s called Kobold (Italian technology, similar to wind turbine blades but planted horizontally deep in the sea, a good place to exploit tidal energy.)”

“A wind turbine blade 10 metres diameter produces the same energy as a sea turbine blade one metre diameter. The Strait of Boniface (between Sardinia and Corsica), the area of sea south of Sicily, a good part of the Terrenian sea, (between Italy, Sardinia and Sicily) the Ligurian sea (between Italy, Corsica and France) and the Strait of Gibraltar, where the Spanish government is installing an Italian prototype, are all good places to exploit marine energy.”

“To transform wave energy into electricity on the other hand, there is now a system called REWEC3 (resonant wave energy converter), a caisson breakwater that protects a port and, at the same time, converts wave energy into electrical power. Otherwise floating snakes that use the undulating oscillations of the sea could be used.”

Interviewer: “Where is this research being carried out in Italy?”

Artale “We at ENEA are providing all our know how, just like the CRN researchers, free to anyone who wants to use it. Then there are proactive universities like the ones in Messina, Reggio Calabria and Naples, but the University of Bologna, Milano and Torino are all involved in this research too. They developed the Kobold prototype, but worldwide there are lots of marine energy patents. Indonesia is developing marine energy.”

“But since our nuclear scientists now have time on their hands and marine energy research is in its infancy, we could really intensify our renewable technology research efforts, focussing on integrated forms of production, with platforms that exploit wind, sun and sea together. Meanwhile the European Community is already announcing funding specifically for marine energy.”

Interviewer “What impact do these technologies have on the environment?”

“The sites need to be assessed very carefully, just as they do for wind turbines and solar voltaics. Obviously we can’t start planting deep sea turbines right near to beaches. But as far as wildlife is concerned these types of technology have very low impact, far less than wind turbines. The REWEC3 caisson breakwaters are places where fish collect.

Eleonora Martini. Onde e Maree: Dal Mediterraneo l’energia rinnovabile del futuro.

Il Manifesto 17 June

translated by Angela Paine

Revealed: British government's plan to play down Fukushima

Internal emails seen by Guardian show PR campaign was launched to protect UK nuclear plans after tsunami in Japan.

Geological disposal of radioactive waste

PR STUNT - "Geology Seminar"

Friday, 24 June 2011

The best PR stunts are dressed up in expensive suits and paid for by the taxpayer. Monday's "geology seminar" at Whitehaven was a brilliant example of nasty spin from a government who wants new nukes and desperately needs to be seen to have 'solved' the nuclear waste problem.

Some have called for "more debate" but even if Cumbria's geology was perfect rather than leaky there are over 100 reasons why dumping high level nuclear waste in the ground is guaranteed to poison the land and us.

Here are just a few examples:

Repository is designed to be leaky
Rusting of the steel in the dump will create huge amounts of hydrogen which will have to be released undermining the so called "multi- barrier" system meant to protect people from leakage. (issues 14 and 15)

Digging underground will create fast pathways for leaks Rock would inevitably be damaged by digging to create huge caverns. The danger caused by this "excavation damage zone" is not understood. ( issue 27)

New data shows copper will corrode faster than assumed The NDA refer to a wall thickness of 5cm for the copper canisters holding high level wastes. Recent research shows that to achieve durability a wall thickness of one metre would be needed! (issue 39)

Nuclear Explosions in the Repository
The probability and impact of a "criticality" or mini nuclear explosion is not understood. ( issue 79)

NOTE- Issues Register from Nuclear Waste Advisory Associates Summary ( 10 pages)

http://www.nuclearwasteadvisory.co.uk/uploads/11953NWAAISSUESREGISTER%5BVersion1.1%5D.pdf

Commentary (30 pages)

http://www.nuclearwasteadvisory.co.uk/uploads/11952NWAA%20ISSUES%20REGISTER%20COMMENTARY%20letterhead.doc

Pro Nuclear Bishop

ACT OF FAITH


Carlisle Cathedral is built to inspire awe. Last time Marriane went there was Chernobyl Day to ask Bishop Newcome (aka Nuke'm) for a rethink on his outspoken support for new build and a deep nuclear dump in Cumbria. A few supporters of a radiation free lakeland went in to the Cathedral.

When she opened her mouth to deliver a brilliant speech to the Bishop's right hand man, a tiny mouse squeak came out "please give this important letter to the Bishop etc.."

As soon as she got out of the Cathedral her voice was back to normal! Thats not important but what is important is that the Bishop has now replied to her letter saying:

I am not prepared at this stage to withdraw my support for new build and geological disposal.

That Angel of Light sat above Carlisle Cathedral must be laughing his fiery socks off! How many more lives will be snuffed out before The Bishop "withdraws his support" ?

Anti nuclear protestors fight on in India

Jul. 02-15, 2011
Nuclear or broke     by Praful Bidwai

India's obsession with nuclear power is proving extremely damaging. It is time to switch to and participate in the renewables revolution.

ARE Indian diplomats, known for their negotiating skills and sense of timing, losing touch with reality? Going by the proposal Indian negotiators tabled at the just-concluded Bonn intersessional climate talks for including nuclear power as a “green” technology under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), it appears that they are either losing touch or are forced to adopt positions that attract disrespect and ridicule.

The CDM, part of the Kyoto Protocol under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, allocates carbon credits to technologies and processes (for instance, reafforestation, industrial-gas destruction) that, theoretically, avert/reduce greenhouse gas emissions in developing countries. These credits are sold profitably to developed-country governments or corporations, which can use them as a substitute for reducing domestic emissions, as they are obliged to do under the Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol is the world's sole legally binding agreement. But its early implementation phase, called First Commitment Period, runs out next year. Many developed countries are loath to negotiate a second period. The Protocol is on life support.

Apart from failing to recognise this, India's proposal was singularly ill-timed. It coincided with the still-continuing Fukushima disaster entering its fourth month, a serious worsening of the global nuclear industry's crisis, and a huge shift in public opinion against nuclear power. No wonder the proposal earned India the “Fossil of the Day” award given by the Climate Action Network of non-governmental organisations to governments that make outlandish or anti-green proposals.

The precise magnitude of the health and environmental damage from the radiation release from Fukushima is yet to be estimated. But it is indisputably the global nuclear industry's greatest accident, far greater than Chernobyl. At Chernobyl, only one reactor underwent a core meltdown. At Fukushima, three reactors did, and the spent fuel of a total of four reactors (containing even higher quantities of dangerous radionuclides) was exposed. This was equivalent to an estimated 20 Chernobyl-sized cores. The quantities of iodine-131 and caesium-137, just two dangerous isotopes, released from Fukushima are estimated to be of the same order as those released from Chernobyl. The releases of these and a host of other radionuclides continue uncontrolled.

Experts are still struggling to reconstruct the chain of mishaps beginning March 11. Each new or updated evaluation suggests that the disaster is far, far worse than earlier thought. Data released by the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), the station operator, show that the fuel rods in the three reactors started to melt down within hours of the earthquake at 2-46 p.m. By 8 p.m, an uncontrolled meltdown had begun at Reactor 1. Fuel slumped to the bottom of the pressure-vessel. By 9 p.m, temperatures had reached 2,800° Celsius, the fuel rods' melting point. The company admits a meltdown also happened at Reactors 2 and 3.

Among the early culprits identified in the scientific analysis were hydrogen explosions of March 12 and 14, which seriously damaged the cores and reactor structures. These are the very events which Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) Secretary Srikumar Banerjee and Nuclear Power Corporation Chairman S.K. Jain dismissed as “purely chemical reactions” not signifying a nuclear emergency or even an “event”.

Fukushima has precipitated the closure of as many as 37 of Japan's 54 nuclear reactors, six of them probably for good. Yet more reactors are likely to be shut down for mandatory annual maintenance, and local authorities are unlikely to permit their early restarting. Japan is reviewing its energy policy and will almost certainly phase out nuclear power. Germany, Switzerland and Italy are opting out. Italy's referendum showed that 95 per cent of people opposeed atomic power.

Even in France, nuclear power's most ardent advocate, 62 per cent of people recently polled wanted a nuclear phase-out, and 15 per cent immediate decommissioning. France, for all its advocacy, has only one reactor under construction; it is in deep trouble. The near-bankrupt nuclear company Areva's CEO, Anne Lauvergeon (“Atomic Anne”), has just been sacked, not least because of the fiasco involving the European Pressurised Reactor (EPR) in Finland and the exorbitant costs and multiple failures of Areva's ventures in Europe, Africa and Japan. With this, says The Economist, “the future of France's nuclear-energy industry just became more uncertain”. Yet, India is planning to instal six EPRs at Jaitapur.

Both the United States and the European Union, which is doing a nine-month review of nuclear reactor safety, including “stress tests”, will probably halt the practice of uprating and extending the lifetimes of reactors. In the U.S., no new reactor has been ordered since 1973. And the European nuclear industry has not yet fully recovered from the Chernobyl shock.

Global financial institutions evaluating Fukushima's impact believe it will lead to the immediate shutdown of old reactors, suspension of new plant approvals, review of reactors in seismically active zones, higher safety and other costs, and re-evaluation of energy policies in all nuclear countries. An HSBC analysis concludes: “Overall, we expect a number of impacts from the public and political backlash against nuclear, which means the focus shifts to renewables.” Standard and Poor's nuclear and clean energy indices are moving divergently. The Swiss investment bank UBS says Fukushima casts doubt on “whether even an advanced economy can master nuclear safety. … We believe the Fukushima accident was the most serious ever for the credibility of nuclear power.”

It will be a miracle if nuclear power survives in the developed world. Before Fukushima, only China and India among developing countries had plans to expand nuclear generation substantially. But China has since imposed a moratorium on further nuclear activity. It has become the world's biggest renewable energy investor. It has 45 gigawatts in wind power, compared with just 10 GW in nuclear. It plans to generate 100 GW in wind and 10 GW in solar-photovoltaics and is already the world leader in solar-thermal.

India alone is playing the boy on the burning deck as far as nuclear power goes. This would carry a fig leaf of credibility if India's nuclear programme were indigenous, big and successful. Alas, it is not. All its reactors are based on imported designs.

Despite annually sinking thousands of crores into the nuclear programme for six decades, India gets only 2.7 per cent of its electricity from nuclear reactors. Its economic, environmental and safety costs are high and rising. The DAE has mismanaged its projects and failed to keep costs under check. Its last 10 reactors were 300 per cent over budget. Its frequent revisions of nuclear generation targets have rendered its energy planning meaningless.

Yet, so insistent is the Manmohan Singh government on forcibly instigating a “nuclear renaissance” that it is ready to violate its own legislation to hand out sweetheart deals to foreign nuclear companies. At stake is the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damages Act, passed last year after a bitter, prolonged debate, during which the government discredited itself by repeatedly trying to doctor the Parliamentary Standing Committee's draft. The law was originally drafted to meet the nuclear industry's demand that only the operator of nuclear facilities be held liable for accidents. But the government, under public pressure, made suppliers, too, liable in case of faulty equipment or design. It is now trying to bypass the Act in respect of Russian-designed Koodankulam reactors to allow a “cost mark-up” to cover additional insurance costs ( The Hindu, June 9). This despicable violation of the very spirit of the Act shows total disdain for Parliament. It must be strongly opposed.

The government confronts yet another unpleasant moment as it moves heaven and earth to be admitted to four plurilateral export-control regimes, which it long termed “cartels” run by “nuclear Ayatollahs”, including the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), the Wassenaar Agreement and the Australia group. This is happening just when the NSG is moving to ban enrichment and reprocessing technology (ENR) transfer to countries that have not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). India claims this breaches the “clean waiver” and “full cooperation” assurances it got in 2008, without ENR exclusion.

Assurances aside, it is totally unrealistic to think ENR can be transferred to any country today, regardless of NPT membership. The U.S. made it clear that it would not sell this to India. India's exertions on this issue, then, are about symbolic recognition as a “responsible” nuclear weapons-state – a contradiction in terms. On nuclear matters, India has always placed an irrational premium on symbols and demanded equal treatment within a regime it long described as “Atomic Apartheid”.

However, a more important, substantial and worthy battle must be fought – working for total global nuclear disarmament. India would gain immensely in global prestige and credibility if it invested in the liability legislation a small fraction of the energies it put into the U.S.-India nuclear deal and in deceiving the public. Equally handsome gains are to be made by participating in and leading the Renewables (Energy) Revolution that is now under way. Both entail abandoning our nuclear obsession.


SOUTH ASIANS AGAINST NUKES (SAAN):

An informal information platform for activists and scholars concerned about the dangers of Nuclearisation in South Asia

http://s-asians-against-nukes.org/



DISCLAIMER: Opinions expressed in materials carried in the posts do not necessarily reflect the views of SAAN compilers.