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.)
