Some dumpyard, this

The villagers were told that the government was exploring for valuable minerals under their fields, minerals that would make them very rich. Then, reports of this activity in the area filtered out. In August 1999, the government announced that the hazardous nuclear waste from various n-plants would be disposed of in Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh. Anti-nuke activists, already suspicious, sniffed out the real intention of the exercise on at Sanawada and landed up.

They inferred that the whole exercise was to determine the suitability of the place for disposing n-waste. Sarvodaya leader Bal Kishan Thanvi, along with anti-nuclear activist Dr Sanghamitra Gadekar and others went to Sanawada on March 15 and informed the villagers about the purpose of the work being carried out. There were some local protests against the drilling after this. Thanvi wrote to the PM, the CM, the DM and other authorities including MECL. Only MECL wrote back, to say that it was wrong to allege that they were putting any harmful or poisonous stuff into the holes. The core issue was thus evaded.

The MECL officials at the camp office in Pokharan denied they were drilling to ascertain the area8217;s suitability for dumping n-waste. 8220;We are only testing granite in the area, to ascertain properties like its hydrological properties, strength, brittleness, depth, etc, for use later,8221; they said. They admitted that MECL has been in the area since 1995 but denied any knowledge of a tie-up between MECL and BARC. 8220;If there is such a tie-up, only the top officials would know about it. We are only field officers,8221; they maintained.

Initially, drilling was to be done up to a depth of 150 metres. This was done in 1997-98. The MECL returned in July 1999 to drill more holes, this time up to 500 metres. Four such holes have so far been bored. Granite columns extracted in boring were being carefully numbered and stored for testing. According to Gadekar, the protest was not about preventing disposal of n-waste already created. It was only directed against the manner in which the exercise was being carried out, without informing the people, creating awareness among them and without having a wider and more open discussion on the problem in which different and independent experts could also contribute.

8220;So far no country has found a safe method of disposing nuclear waste. The decision is not a simple one, for the high level waste would remain dangerous for millions of years. It has to be ensured that it does not come on the surface or in contact with water or get released in any other way for all that period. This is not a matter related to the country8217;s defence secrets but concerns the safety and security of the people at large.

Handling a problem that could affect several generations necessarily requires taking the existing population into confidence,8221; he said.Indeed, the problem of disposal of nuclear waste is an issue to which the governments of the world have no answer and constitutes one of the strongest arguments of the anti-nuclear lobby. Pokharan, where n-devices were tested twice, already has a problem. The incidence of cancer is estimated to be high in this region. Two cancer deaths reportedly took place within the last few weeks. According to a local journalist, Manohar Joshi, there were about a dozen persons in the town suffering from cancer of the throat, blood, bone or stomach. A study by Dr Agarwal of Rajasthan University was reported to have determined a rise in cancer cases in Pokharan after the first underground test in 1974.

In a larger context, the problem is about radiation hazards and radioactive materials, not just about nuclear weapons. A study carried out by a team led by Gadekar in 1991 detected several diseases in villages located within a 10 km radius from the atomic station at Rawatbhata. The survey covered five villages around Rawatbhata atomic power station and compared the findings with five similar villages located over 50 km from it. It was found that the incidence of babies born with disabilities was distinctly higher and the proportion of spontaneous abortions, babies being born dead and dying within a day of birth, was also much higher than in other villages. Childlessness was more marked in the area and general life expectancy was about 10 years less than in villages at a safer distance.

Incidence of tumours was seven times higher in villages around the atomic station.

Gadekar argued that these findings raised questions about the environmental safety and advisability of such plants. She held that a detailed study also needs to be carried out on nuclear test sites in Pokharan to get a clearer picture.

Jaipur-based Professor K.B.Garg, an internationally renowned physicist, explains that there are no safe methods to get rid of nuclear waste and there cannot be. The highly radioactive components remain for centuries and no one could guarantee the changes the earth might undergo in that length of time.

He points out that developed countries, knowing that there were no safe means of disposing such wastes, opted to dump them on poorer nations in return for heavy payments. India cannot choose such an exorbitant course so it chooses to dump its wastes in its own territory. The scientists of the establishment then dutifully testify that such methods are 8220;safe8221;.

Burying the waste deep into granite may sound safe. But the problem at best is only hidden away. Nuclear waste is highly radioactive and generates intense heat, liable to cause the granite to develop cracks. Water could seep in and radiation could leak out. In the case of Pokharan, people here are dependent heavily on ground water and they are boring deeper and deeper as the water table falls.

According to Garg, the testing of smaller n-devices in 1998 has the attendant problem of releasing a much higher degree of radioactivity. The government immediately declared it as 8220;absolutely safe8221;, without revealing any details.

That was a weapons programme, but the disposal of radioactive waste or safety of nuclear reactors does not involve any defence secret. Like Gadekar, Garg strongly advocates bring independent scientists in to monitor such projects.8220;Why can8217;t they allow us to go and take readings? Why do they expect people to believe them blindly?8221; he asked.

The trouble with 8220;establishment scientists8221;, Garg pointed out, is that they are neither honest nor objective. They say what they are required to. When Chernobyl took place, nuclear scientists here were quick to rule out the possibility such an accident in India on the ground that the technology used in India is different and superior. Today, India was taking Russian technology for three nuclear reactors even though no great scientific advancements have been made in that country over the last disturbed decade.