Environmental Toxins to Blame for Declining Fertility Rates?

2:28 AM / Posted by SHIV SHAMBU / comments (0)

Environmental Toxins to Blame for Declining Fertility Rates?
published 11:00 a.m., Tuesday, July 10, 2012

 

Exposure to toxic chemicals in our environment may be negatively impacting fertility rates. Currently, infertility impacts 15% of all couples with causes equally attributable to both the male and female partner. Fortunately, by identifying and better understanding how to avoid these harmful toxins, couples can minimize the negative impact they have on their fertility. Following are 10 simple steps to doing just that.
Bellingham, WA (PRWEB) July 10, 2012
Over the last couple of decades, environmental and reproductive health advocates have been sounding the alarm about the devastating impact that short-term and long-term exposure to toxic chemicals in our environment has on male and female fertility. And, these folks are not just crying wolf: The mounting evidence linking exposure to environmental toxins with impaired reproductive function (including decreasing fertility rates and increasing rates of pregnancy complications) grows larger and larger with each passing year.
While many tend to associate infertility issues with the female partner, that is often not the case. “It’s a fact that one in six couples will have difficulty conceiving, but many aren’t aware that almost half the time, it’s the male who is the cause of the problem,” said fertility expert, Dr. Amos Grunebaum. According to a study in the British Medical Journal, average sperm count in adult males has decreased by an alarming 50 percent since 1938 and continues to decline at a rate of 2 percent each year. Exposure to environmental toxins is suspected to be a contributing factor.
Unfortunately, it is virtually impossible to completely avoid exposure to the chemicals that harm reproductive health, which is certainly unsettling news for trying-to-conceive couples. These chemicals, often referred to as endocrine disruptors because of their ability to wreak havoc with the normal function of our hormones, are everywhere in our environment. You breathe them in, drink them in, eat them, and apply them to your hair and skin when using cosmetics and shampoos.
While it is impossible to completely avoid exposure to toxins in today’s world, there are steps you can take to mitigate their effect on your reproductive health. Here are 10 things you can do to reduce the toxic burden in your body:
1.    Get to know the enemy. Here is an introduction to the chemicals that may be reducing your fertility. By familiarizing yourself with these names, you can take steps to reduce your exposure, remembering of course, that some exposure is inevitable.
Bisphenol–A: BPA is used to make the plastics found in food and drink containers, the lining of tin cans, toys, baby bottles, dental sealants, flame retardants, and plastic wraps. The story of BPA clearly illustrates the uphill climb that environmental and reproductive health advocates face when trying to initiate change. Armed with a large body of scientific evidence (based on animal research) that reveals that BPA exposure contributes to heart disease, diabetes, as well as fertility and reproductive issues, advocates have been lobbying for years to get BPA banned. In January 2010, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) did officially state concern about the health effects of BPA exposure, although no additional action was taken to restrict the use of BPA in the manufacturing of plastics.
Parabens: These chemicals are found primarily in cosmetics and pharmaceuticals as a preservative, appearing on ingredient labels with names like methylparaben, ethylparaben and propylparaben.
Phthalates: These chemicals are added to plastics to make them more flexible and resilient. Phthalates are found in lots of different products that we come in contact with daily, including detergents, plastic bags, food packaging, shower curtains, children’s toys, soaps and shampoos, and hair spray. Again, it is important to read labels, as these chemicals may appear in the ingredient listing with names like DBP (di-n-butyl phthalate) and DEP (diethyl phthalate). 
Dioxin: A general name given to a group of hundreds of chemicals that are formed during industrial processes that involve the use of chlorine, including waste incineration, chemical and pesticide manufacturing, and pulp and paper bleaching. Dioxin is released into the air and settles onto the ground where it contaminates soils, and thereby makes its way into the food supply. 
Organophosphates and organochlorines: These compounds are used in the manufacture of pesticides and herbicides.
Heavy metals: Due to industrial processes, pollution from automobiles, cigarette smoke, and heavy pesticide use, heavy metals (such as cadmium, mercury, lead and arsenic) pervade our food supply and our environment. As a result, most people are exposed on a daily basis to these metals, which can accumulate in our organs and impair reproductive health.
2.    Support organic farming. Whenever possible choose organic produce, dairy products, and meats. Buying “organic” guarantees that your food will be free of pesticide residues and artificial growth hormones. And, it is important to remember that many toxic chemicals are stored in fatty tissues, which means that organic dairy products and meats that contain fat (which all of them do to some extent) will have fewer contaminants than animal products coming from conventionally raised livestock.
3.    Break the habit. Cigarette smoke is a major source of heavy metal exposure.
4.    Say no to BPA. Avoid purchasing food and drinks packaged in plastics containing bisphenol -A. And, never microwave food in plastic containers.
5.    Drink filtered water. And, be sure to avoid bottled water packaged in plastic bottles containing bisphenol-A.
6.    Supplement with fish oil. Omega 3 fatty acids (found primarily in fish oil) are an important part of a healthy diet, and especially important for trying-to-conceive and pregnant women. But, unfortunately, the fish that are high in Omega 3s also tend to have high levels of mercury. By supplementing with a chemical-free, high-quality fish oil supplement, such asPregnancy Plus Omega 3, you will reap the benefits of the omega-3 fatty acids without the risk of increasing your mercury levels.
7.    Put the green in clean. Use only non-toxic cleaning supplies in your home.
8.    Free yourself from parabens and phthalates. Read the labels of the personal care products you use very carefully, and avoid products that contain phthalates and parabens.
9.    Don’t contaminate your yard. Choose natural, non-toxic alternatives to conventional pesticides and fertilizers for your lawn and garden care needs.
10.    Detoxify! Fairhaven Health has gathered a team of doctors and nutritionists to develop FertileDetox, a comprehensive formulation designed to enhance fertility in women and men by helping the body's detoxification systems to neutralize and remove the toxic compounds that diminish reproductive health.
“FertileDetox helps promote the elimination of environmental toxins that can damage reproductive organs, decreasing fertility for both women and men,” says Dr. Chris Meletis, a fertility expert and former Naturopathic Physician of the Year who helps to formulate products for Fairhaven Health. “Before actively trying to conceive, men and women should focus on creating truly fertile ground for conception by eliminating the toxins we’re exposed to every day.” FertileDetox was formulated for both women and men and should be taken 3 months before actively trying to conceive and up until pregnancy is achieved. FertileDetox retails for $34.95 and is available at http://www.fairhavenhealth.com.
About Fairhaven Health and their Medical Advisors 
Fairhaven Health’s safe, natural products promote healthy reproduction, from preconception through pregnancy and nursing. Fairhaven’s supplement products are based on clinically-established science and all manufacturing is governed by strict Good Manufacturing Practice Regulations overseen by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Distribution partners include hospitals, fertility clinics, pharmacies, specialty retail stores and online retailers such as CVS.com, drugstore.com and walgreens.com.
Dr. Grunebaum is a New York based physician who is double-board certified in obstetrics/gynecology and maternal-fetal medicine (high-risk pregnancy). He is recognized as one of New York's foremost Ob/Gyns as evidenced by his regular inclusion in Castle Connolly's "Top Doctors: New York."
Dr. Meletis is an internationally recognized naturopathic physician and respected educator in the field of natural medicine. A former Dean of Naturopathic Medicine and Chief Medical Officer for the National College of Naturopathic Medicine, Dr. Meletis has authored 14 books and over 80 published articles.
For the original version on PRWeb visit: http://www.prweb.com/releases/prweb2012/7/prweb9672821.htm

Organic foods are not healthier or better for the environment – and they’re packed with pesticides, argued Rob Johnston in his article “The great organic myths” published in these columns on August 8. Here is the counter view

12:41 AM / Posted by SHIV SHAMBU / comments (0)

Organic foods are not healthier or better for the environment – and they’re packed with pesticides, argued Rob Johnston in his article “The great organic myths” published in these columns on August 8. Here is the counter view 
Myths about industrial agricultureDr Vandana Shiva
INDUSTRIAL agriculture is an inefficient and wasteful system which is chemical intensive, fossil fuel intensive and capital intensive. It destroys nature’s capital on the one hand and society’s capital on the other, by displacing small farms and destroying health. It uses 10 units of energy as input to produce one unit of energy as food.
Farm workers spray fertilizer in a paddy field at a village near Amritsar. Our food is as healthy as the soil on which it grows.
Farm workers spray fertilizer in a paddy field at a village near Amritsar. Our food is as healthy as the soil on which it grows. Photo: AFP
This waste is amplified by anther factor often when animals are put in factory farms and fed grain, instead of grass in free range ecological systems, Rob Johnston celebrates these animal prisons as efficient, ignoring the fact that it takes 7 kg of grain to produce one kg of beef, 4kg of grain to produce 1 kg of pork and 2.4 kg of grain to produce 1 kg of chicken. The diversion of food grains to feed is a major contributor to world hunger. And the shadow acres to produce this grain are never counted. Europe uses seven times the area outside Europe to produce feed for its factory farms.
Targeting small farmsSmall farms of the world provide 70% of the food, yet are being destroyed in the name of low “yields”. Some 88% of the food is consumed within the same eco-region or country where it is grown. Industrialisation and globalisation is the exception, not the norm. And where industrialisation has not destroyed small farms and local food economies, biodiversity and food are bringing sustenance to people.
The biodiversity of agriculture is being maintained by small farmers. As the ETC report states “peasants breed and nurture 40 livestock species and almost 8,000 breeds. Peasants also breed 5,000 domesticated crops and have donated more than 1.9 million plant varieties to the world’s gene banks. Peasant fishers harvest and protect more than 15,000 freshwater species. The work of peasants and pastoralists maintaining soil fertility is 18 times more valuable than the synthetic fertilizers provided by the seven largest corporations” (ETC Group, “Who Will Feed Us?”).
When this biodiversity rich food system is replaced by industrial monocultures, when food is commoditised, the result is hunger and malnutrition. Of the world’s 6.6 billion, one billion are not getting enough food, another billion might get enough calories but not enough nutrition, especially micro nutrients. Another 1.3 billion who are obese suffer the malnutrition of being condemned to artificially cheap, calorie-rich, nutrient-poor processed food.
Hunger by designHalf of the world’s population is a victim of structural hunger and food injustice in today’s dominant design for food. We have had hunger in the past, but it was caused by external factors – wars and natural disasters. It was localised in space and time. Today’s hunger is permanent and global. It is hunger by design. This does not mean that those who design the contemporary food systems intend to create hunger. It does mean that the creation of hunger is built into the corporate design of industrial production and globalised distribution of food.
The dominant myth of industrial agriculture is that it produces more food and is land saving. However, the more industrial agriculture spreads, the more hungry people we have. And the more industrial agriculture spreads, the more land is grabbed.
Productivity in industrial agriculture is measured in terms of “yield” per acre, not overall output. And the only input taken into account is labour, which is abundant, not natural resources which are scarce.
A resource hungry and resource destructive system of agriculture is not land saving, it is land demanding. That is why industrial agriculture is driving a massive planetary land grab. It is leading to the deforestation of the rainforests in the Amazon for soya and in Indonesia for palmoil. And it is fuelling a land grab in Africa, displacing pastoralists and peasants.
Industrial agriculture is responsible for 75% biodiversity erosion, 75% water destruction, 75% land degradation and 40% greenhouse gases. It is too heavy a burden on the planet. And as the 2,70,000 farmers suicides in India show, it is too heavy a burden on our farmers.
The toxics and poisons used in chemical farming are creating a health burden for our society. Remember Bhopal. Remember the endosulfan victims in Kerala. And remember Punjab’s cancer train.
A series of media reports have covered another study by a team led by Bravata, a senior affiliate with Stanford's Center for Health Policy, and Crystal Smith-Spangler, MD, MS, an instructor in the school's Division of General Medical Disciplines and a physician-investigator at VA Palo Alto Health Care System, did the most comprehensive meta-analysis to date of existing studies comparing organic and conventional foods. They did not find strong evidence that organic foods are more nutritious or carry fewer health risks than conventional alternatives, though consumption of organic foods can reduce the risk of pesticide exposure.”
This study can hardly be called the “most comprehensive meta analysis.” For their study, the researchers sifted through thousands of papers and identified 237 of the most relevant to analyse. This already exposes the bias. The biggest meta analysis on food and agriculture has been done by the United Nations as the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology (IAASTD).
Parading junk scienceAbout 400 scientists from across the world worked for four years to analyse all publications on different approaches to agriculture, and concluded that chemical industrial agriculture is no longer an option, only ecological farming is. Yet the Stanford team presents itself as the most comprehensive study, and claims there are no health benefits from organic agriculture, even though there were no long-term studies of health outcomes of people consuming organic versus conventionally produced food; the duration of the studies involving human subjects ranged from two days to two years. Two days does not make a scientific study. No impact can be measured in a two-day study. This is junk science parading as science. One principle about food and health is that our food is as healthy as the soil on which it grows. And it is as deficient as the soils become with chemical farming.
Industrial chemical agriculture creates hunger and malnutrition by robbing crops of nutrients. Industrially produced food is nutritionally empty mass, loaded with chemicals and toxins. Nutrition in food comes from nutrients in the soil. Industrial agriculture, based on the NPK mentality of synthetic nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium based fertilisers leads to the depletion of vital micro nutrients and trace elements such as magnesium, zinc, calcium and iron.
David Thomas, a geologist-turned-nutritionist, discovered that between 1940 and 1991, vegetables had lost – on average – 24 percent of their magnesium, 46 percent of their calcium, 27 percent of their iron and no less than 76 percent of their copper (Ref :David Thomas 'A study on the mineral depletion of the foods available to us as a nation over the period 1940 to 1991'. Nutrition and Health 2003; 17: 85-115).
Carrots had lost 75 percent of their calcium, 46 percent of their iron and 75 percent of their copper. Potatoes had lost 30 percent of their magnesium, 35 percent calcium, 45 percent iron and 47 percent copper.
To get the same amount of nutrition people will need to eat much more food. The increase in “yields” of empty mass does not translate into more nutrition. In fact it is leading to malnutrition.
Poor nutritionThe IAASTD recognises that through an agro-ecological approach “agro-ecosystems of even the poorest societies have the potential through ecological agriculture and IPM to meet or significantly exceed yields produced by conventional methods, reduce the demand for land conversion for agriculture, restore ecosystem services (particularly water) reduce the use of and need for synthetic fertilisers derived from fossil fuels, and the use of harsh insecticides and herbicides.”
Our 25 years of experience at Navdanya shows that ecological, organic farming is the only way to produce food without harming the planet and people’s health. This is a trend that will grow, no matter how many pseudo-scientific stories are planted in the media by the industry.
Vandana Shiva is the author of “Violence of Green Revolution” and Director, Research Foundation for Science Technology & Ecology, New Delhi

Health a casualty in toxic Bet villages

12:40 AM / Posted by SHIV SHAMBU / comments (0)

Health a casualty in toxic Bet villages Impure water flowing from Budha Nullah has made area residents vulnerable to various diseases
Minna Zutshi
Tribune News Service
Ludhiana, September 9
Sixtyfive years after Independence, residents of Sidhwan Bet area have no potable water or easy access to health services. The highly toxic water flowing from the Budha Nullah have made the residents’ life vulnerable to life-threatening diseases.
At Harnam Singh’s house in Hujran village, an old woman greets us with a faint smile. She is a cancer survivor. It took her almost a year to get the disease diagnosed. Finally, she got treatment from a private hospital in Rajasthan. The disease has aged the woman prematurely. There’s no government dispensary in the village, says her husband. A young woman places two glasses of water on the table.
She insists that we drink the water at once lest it turns yellow. A woman visiting them complains of hepatitis. Another woman from the same village mistakes The Tribune reporter for a doctor. She hastens to narrate her medical history, observing that a medical practitioner in the village is a rarity.
Adjacent to this house is a government school where a girl, after having her midday meal, is gulping water drawn from a hand pump. Some boys are seen queuing up for tap water. We ask them whether any RO system has been installed at the school. “We’re told by a teacher that the school does have an RO system. The teachers drink treated water. We’re told that there’s a plan to dismantle the hand pump and to connect taps to the waterworks in the village,” says one of them.
Apart from the foundation stone at the schoolgate, three other stones announcing various developmental works catch one’s eye. At Bhaini Gujran, students at Government Primary School are drinking water from a hose pipe. The “RO system”, we are told, is out of order.
“As a social worker, it pains me to watch these students drink this foul water. The school does not have a connection to the village waterworks. We’re playing with our children’s health ,” says Kiranjit Kaur, an anganwadi worker at a centre on the school premises.
At Bhaini Araiyan village, a patriarch whose five family members are cancer patients, talks only of the polluted water that the villagers in the Bet area are forced to consume. “The poison flowing from the Budha Nullah is killing the residents,” he says. “No one from the Health Department has ever visited us,” he claims.
At Walipur Khurd, sarpanch Ranjit Kaur’s daughter-in-law Kulwinder says though they get the water from the waterworks, it turns yellowish if kept overnight in a container. The family has installed an RO system at home. The sarpanch, referring to some cases of hepatitis C and cancer, says in case of illness, the villagers have to go to Hambran for treatment though the nearest government dispensary is at Bhundri.
Ghamnewal village sarpanch Manjit Singh says there is a need to bore deeper for waterworks. At the far-end of Walipur Khurd village, four households near the bundh along the Sutlej complain about the water drawn from the recently installed hand pump. “If we keep the water unused for a few hours, it gets spoilt,” says Pal Kaur.
Social activist Sohan Singh Salempura says: “The Bet area is the backwaters of Punjab. The people here, instead of consulting medical experts, prefer to repose their faith in tantriks and quacks. Many villagers are unaware of the grave threat that the polluted water poses to their health. Lack of adequate healthcare services is turning desperate residents towards quacks and tantriks.”
OFFICIAL WORD
Dr Satpaul, Senior Medical Officer, Sidhwan Bet, when contacted, said, “We keep organising awareness camps in the villages. From time to time, we call sarpanches and panches to these camps as we feel that the people will pay heed to their suggestions.”
He claimed that the healthcare facilities were adequate. “In the recent past, we conducted 23 major surgeries. Sixty deliveries were conducted at the Community Health Centre (CHC) in Sidhwan Bet. Out of these surgeries, seven C-sections were done. Our daily OPD gets more than 150 patients. a round-the-clock emergency services are available at the CHC. Ambulance 108 are also available,” he said.
“The bed occupancy rate at the CHC is more than 100 per cent. We have adequate staff. There are 25 sub-centres and 16 subsidiary health centres in the Sidhwan Bet block,” he added.
Legislator Manpreet Singh Ayali said he would make all efforts to ensure that the villagers faced no problem. “We plan to new health schemes for the villagers,” he said

Govt to fund infertility treatment of Parsis

12:37 AM / Posted by SHIV SHAMBU / comments (0)

New Delhi, September 9
On a demographic decline, the Parsis are all set to get government help in improving their dwindling numbers and fertility.
The Planning Commission has approved a novel, first-of-its-kind scheme, which the Minority Affairs Ministry had mooted to fund the cost of infertility treatment in Parsi couples. The 100 per cent centrally funded scheme is rooted in the realisation that appallingly low levels of marriage, fertility and childbirth are the main reasons for the plummeting population of Parsis, one of the five minorities under the central National Minority Commission Act.
The community has a shockingly low Total Fertility Rate (the number of children a woman bears in her life) of 0.89 as against India’s average of 2.5. Their numbers fell from 1.14 lakh in 1941 to 69,601 in 2001 and further to 60,000 in 2011. Costing Rs 20 crore, the scheme would be part of the 12th Plan once the National Development Council approves the full plan. It has been cleared by the Planning Commission steering group headed by Syeda Hameed and included in the draft plan.
“The scheme will enable the government to fund fertility clinics in Parsi-dominated areas,” Chairman, National Commission for Minorities (NCM), Wajahat Habibullah told The Tribune today.
It envisages financial aid for detection of infertility in childless couples, infertility counselling and screening of female children for detection of diseases that result in infertility and would also support fertility clinics being run by Parsis. Bombay Parsi Panchayat runs one such clinic which offers facilities of blood testing, trans-vaginal sonography, laproscopy/hysterectomy and semen analysis to Parsi couples leading to an infertility treatment plan.
Noted Parsi poet and NCM member Keki Daruwalla firmly pushed the scheme in an April 25 letter to Hameed which he wrote amid criticism that the government can’t possibly fund infertility treatment of a minority.
“Parsis, despite being a minority, avail none of the benefits that accrue to other minority communities,” Daruwalla said.

12:34 AM / Posted by SHIV SHAMBU / comments (0)

soucide

12:29 AM / Posted by SHIV SHAMBU / comments (0)


Labels:

soucide

12:29 AM / Posted by SHIV SHAMBU / comments (0)


Exposure to pesticide behind childhood cough

6:20 AM / Posted by SHIV SHAMBU / comments (0)

Children exposed to the widely used pesticide additive piperonyl butoxide (PBO) in the womb have heightened risk of noninfectious cough at ages 5 and 6, a new study has found. The findings support the premise that the children's respiratory system is susceptible to damage from toxic exposures during the prenatal period. A common symptom, childhood cough can disrupt normal daytime activities and interrupt sleep for both child and parent. Researchers at the Columbia Center for Children's Environmental Health (CCCEH) at the Mailman School of Public Health and of Columbia University Medical Center conducted the study. Piperonyl butoxide (PBO) is an organic compound used to bolster the effects of pyrethroid pesticides. Pyrethroids are the most commonly used pesticides for both professional pest control and non-professional residential use, according to a 2011 study by Mailman School researchers. Exposure to one pyrethroid, a variation of permethrin, was linked with increased risk for cough by age 5 in a 2009 study by Rachel Miller, MD. In the current study, Dr. Miller and colleagues sought to build on these findings by exploring the effects of subsequent exposure during childhood, looking specifically at the effects of PBO exposure. Researchers looked at 224 mother-child pairs enrolled in the CCCEH birth cohort study of environmental exposures, examining measures of PBO and pyrethroid in personal air monitors worn by the mothers during pregnancy. Air samples also were collected from the home over the course of two weeks when children were between 5 and 6 years old. Questionnaires were used to evaluate respiratory outcomes. Researchers found that children exposed to PBO during pregnancy had increased odds of reporting cough unrelated to cold or flu. Exposures to PBO during childhood were not a factor. There was no observed association between prenatal or childhood permethrin exposure and cough, something the researchers say may be explained by the fact that PBO is much easier to measure in air samples than permethrin. There was also no association with PBO or permethrin exposure and other respiratory outcomes like wheeze or asthma. While it is unclear whether the effect is due mainly to PBO itself or residential pyrethroids of which PBO is an indicator, it is important to remember, said Dr. Miller, that "these exposures may be a factor in a very common problem for children—cough." The findings appeared recently in the online edition of the journal Environment International. Umendra Dutt Executive Director KHETI VIRASAT MISSION JAITU-151202 District-Faridkot,Punjab

Labels: ,

The UPA’s Love for Nuclear Suppliers: A Liability on the Indian People

3:18 AM / Posted by SHIV SHAMBU / comments (0)

The Indian nuclear establishment’s best attempts at circumventing the democratically mandated legislation to safeguard people’s interests in the event of a nuclear accident have met yet another roadblock: the Indian parliament’s Committee on Subordinate Legislation. In its report on the draft Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage (CLND) Rules 2011 to support the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act 2010, the Committee headed by Mr. P Karunakaran, a senior member of the Indian parliament, has criticised the Department of Atomic Energy(DAE) for diluting and contradicting the spirit of the Act itself. DOWNLOAD the Parliament’s Committee’s Report Other useful resources: Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act 2010 Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Rules 2011 Liability Rules: Delayed and Still Incomplete? The Committee has openly criticised the DAE for inordinate delay in framing the CLND Rules, reflecting its “lackadaisical” approach. The Rules should have been framed along with the drafting of the Act itself in 2010. Although the DAE in its clarification has cited “legal consultations”, the Rules are far from complete even after 13 months! The DAE is yet to frame rules under Section 11 and 12 of the Act dealing with the terms and conditions of service of the Claims Commissioner. The parliament’s Committee has said that it is ‘distressed’ by such delay. The actual reasons for this delay in drafting the CLND Rules have been the essentially political designs to out-manoeuvre the Indian parliament in order to provide the international nuclear suppliers a liability-free playing field. To achieve a seat on the illusive high table of nuclear weapon states, the Indian elite has been using the safety, lives and livelihoods of Indian common people as a bargaining chip in the international negotiations. The Manmohan Singh’s government under UPA-I promised to buy 10,000 MWs each from the US and French nuclear corporations on the eve of NSG clearance in September 2008. This was done without any independent assessment of nuclear power’s role and desirability in catering to India’s energy needs. Since then, the Indian nuclear story has its proverbial horse behind the cart. So, after the global nuclear cartels are allowed entry into India, the need for having a liability legislation was felt. Definitely not for safeguarding the Indian people’s lives and safety. After all, there was no nuclear liability mechanism for last 60 years and the Supreme Court’s “polluter pays” directive and other laws of the land would have come to people’s rescue, notwithstanding the nuclear establishment’s attempts to callously play down any such accident, as it has done in the past with many minor and major accidents. Understandably, the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act 2010 had to be brought actually to define and limit the supplier’s liability so that they don’t get caught into any Bhopal-like criminal legal case haunting Dow Chemicals even today. As an aside, the Nuclear Safety Regulatory Authority (NSRA) Bill, currently under discussion in the parliament, was claimed to be the government’s attempt to beef up nuclear safety in India post-Fukushima. But even this piece of legislation is actually going to be instrumental in enabling foreign nuclear suppliers’ entry in India. The existing AERB, although very limited in its scope and entirely dependent on the DAE for its staff and resources, starts regulating the nuclear power plants at the inception itself – at the planning and site selection stage and is supposed to licenses any design only after thoroughly examining it all. The proposed NSRA’s mandate prevents it from looking into the preliminary decision to import a particular reactor for a given site. It will start looking into safety aspects of the projects once the decision to import is taken by the government. Apart from other dangerous loopholes in the proposed NSRA Bill, this is definitely something which can be envisaged only when the policy makers take the nuclear imports such as Areva’s reactors in Jaitapur as non-negotiable. There is a distinctive pattern of keeping the foreign corporates’ interests first at every important juncture over the last 7 years. And reasons for this are not difficult to understand. The delay in framing the CLND Rules bears that unmissable stamp: as recently as June this year, the US Assistant Secretary of State Robert Blakementioned some “unresolved” concerns over the nuclear liability. Even the French and the RussianAmbassadors and officials in New Delhi have gone public in demanding a liability-free business. If even after 13 months, some parts of the Rule have remained incomplete, the DAE should clearly be accused of trying to buy more time probably to accommodate the foreign suppliers’ interests further. Indemnifying the Nuclear Suppliers: Liability as “Reimbursement” The Committee has exposed the government’s attempts to further dilute the suppliers’ liability, albeit already limited under the section 17 (A) of the CLND Act 2010. The same dichotomy was underlined by Mr. Soli Sorabjee, India’s former Attorney general, when he asserted that the CLND Rules are ultra virus of the Act and are thus invalid.The Rules put further limitation of suppliers’ liability in 2 ways: - by bringing in the “product liability period”, maximum of 5 years, when the supplier can be held liable. The DAE’s lame defense before the Committee betray its true loyalty: within 5 years, the skilled operator and the regulator would find any major latent and patent defects, hence no need to tie the supplier! - by further capping the liability to the value of the contract or the liability of the operator, whichever is less. So, even in a clear case of accident ascribed to the supplier’s fault, it will be liable to pay only the price of its equipment even if the total damage runs into crores. “A criterion such as the value of the contract has no rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved and hence there is no rational basis for curtailing supplier’s liability” – was Justice Soli Sorabjee’s remark on this dichotomy. The operator’s maximum liability in case of a commercial reactor is kept 1500 crores while for spent fuel pool and research reactors it is capped at Rs. 300 and 100 crores. So if a catastrophic accident in a spent fuel pool causes damage worth billions of dollars, the supplier will still be liable for a maximum of Rs. 300 crores! However, the DAE’s clarification to the Committee reduced liability into “reimbursement”! In its note, the DAE has said, “It is a kind of reimbursement. You can’t reimburse an amount larger than what you have paid” The clarification on capping liability ends with an emphatic”that’s all.” The DAE must acknowledge that liability is not a largesse. It is also a mechanism to ensure that the companies adhere to best safety practices. The IAEA itself has underlined these roles of nuclear liability mechanisms- to protect the public, the environment and to enhance nuclear safety. After Fukushima, the need to revisit and revise the nuclear liability regulations has been widely recognised. As Mark Cooper noted in his article in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, When governments socialize risk — shift it from the private sector to the public — they create what economists call moral hazard. This is the hazard that the private actor, who no longer bears the risk, will do more risky things than he would have done, if he had borne the full liability of his actions. It is a moral problem; the irresponsible actions of one person or entity harm an innocent bystander. It is also an economic problem because it induces firms to engage in uneconomic activities. The parliament’s Committee has frowned over the fact that there is no clarity over the definition of “legal representative” of the potential victims. It has also highlighted the unnecessary reference to other legislations such as the Atomic Energy Act 1962 and the Atomic Energy (Radiation Protection) Rules of 2004. In its clarification, the DAE has said that a reference to these legislations would mean that “any change therein will Automatically be reflected in the Rules”. Isn’t it then like keeping back-doors open for introducing further changes silently? Evidently, the Committee has found the DAE’s clarification “not convincing”. Notification of Nuclear Accident: Time and Scope for Playing Down The Committee has expressed concern regarding the period of 15 days for notification of a nuclear accident as it is “on the higher side”. It has emphasised that such accidents should be handled at “war footing”. The DAE has cited “complex technical issues, analysis of data, deliberations by experts, decisions by the AERB” as well as a complete analysis of the radiation distribution in the area and pathological determination of the radiation inhaled by people. It is noteworthy that the analysis of radiation distribution in Fukushima is still in process and it will take years and probably decades to determine the total radiation inhaled by people and absorbed by the immediate atmosphere, water and land. Evidently, all this cannot be done in 15 days. In fact to notify an accident, one doesn’t need to do all this. The operator would know the extent of damage done to the reactor and the amount of radiation released by its plant. Based on which, it can notify about the accident and later even revise the notified scale of accident as happened in Fukushima. But in India, the DAE would take 15 days for notification and make it subject to pathological assessment of radiation inhaled which obviously can be manipulated and downplayed. Responding to Dr. Kalam’s article supporting Koodankulam Nuclear Power Project, M V Ramana rightly argued: “If there was really a “0% chance” of an accident, why would nuclear vendors work so hard to indemnify themselves?…….. When nuclear companies are unwilling to stake their financial health on these claims of “100% safety,” how can the government ask local residents to risk their lives?” Despite the shadow-boxing on the liability for still-under-consideration Reactors 3 & 4 in Koodankulam, our Prime Minister has avoided any mention of liability for the Reactors 1 and 2 which his government is bent on commissioning despite massive protests and objections raised by independent experts and members of GoI’s own National Expert Committee like Ms. Aruna Roy. The parliament’s Committee’s report on the nuclear liability rules, along with the CAG’s report on nuclear safety in India and the Madras High Court’s observations on Koodankulam are the voices of our collective conscience of the nation against leaving Indian people’s safety and future hostage to nuclear predators. It will be suicidal to ignore ................ P K Sundaram

Labels: ,
7:00 AM / Posted by SHIV SHAMBU / comments (0)