Home
Publications
Search
Register
Log inTunnel vision blocks neutrino lab progress
Page 1 of 1
Tunnel vision blocks neutrino lab progress
by Seva Lamberdar Tue Feb 24, 2015 11:23 am
It seems that the travails of the Indian Neutrino Observatory (INO), a major basic science project jointly undertaken by the department of atomic energy and the department of science and technology, are never ending.
After years of work to make the project take off, INO is again the subject of multiple attacks in judicial fora from a section of so-called environmentalist opinion, joined by some political leaders who have taken an attitude of unremitting hostility to the project.
The first is a writ petition filed before the Madurai bench of the Madras high court by MDMK leader Vaiko. The second is a petition by the Tamil Nadu NGO, Poovulagin Nanbargal, before the southern bench of the National Green Tribunal. How valid are the bewildering array of allegations that have been levelled over the years against the project? We cannot call these "concerns," as they have ignored the detailed information that has been provided by the project proponents on their website hosted at the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (http:www.ino.tifr.res.in), one of India's premier research institutions and a project partner. Not only is information provided in detail, but, in a welcome move, it has also been presented in both Tamil and Malayalam.
Standard environmental concerns have all been dealt with in the FAQs section on the website and need no repetition here. For instance, the area where the exit point of the tunnel is to be located is not a forest region.
The cover consists mainly of thorny bushes, and is officially classified as poromboke (or waste) land -hence no issues regarding land acquisition either. Since most of the construction will be underground, the question of disturbing the region's vegetation cover on a large scale does not arise. Several other queries relating, for instance, to managing the dust that will be generated, or storage of the muck that comes from tunnel boring, have all been dealt with. Further, the clearance notification of the ministry of environment and forests with the prescribed safeguards is provided on the website.
Having clearly no argument to derail the project on such obvious grounds, its opponents have for several years now resorted to a number of other fanciful allegations, some of them reproduced in the two judicial petitions filed recently . Would the project, in its current location, endanger groundwater resources? It will not, as a matter of fact, since there is no groundwater to be found 1,200 metres below surface in the hard rock of the tunnelling zone known as charnockite.
This incidentally has nothing to do with the "charnockite aquifers" referred to by groundwater studies, which talk about either the weather-eroded surface layers of charrnockite rock or the valleys of soil and earth to be found amidst charnockite rock, neither of which has any relevance below 1,200 metres of hard rock.
Would the blasting endanger water reservoirs and their dams in neighbouring Idukki district and the dozen nearby in Tamil Nadu? There is absolutely no evidence that this would be the case, especially given the limited extent of the tunnel.
The extravagant claims in the petition are based on write-ups from one of the die-hard opponents of the project, V T Padmanaban, who has developed a unique style of misrepresenting scientific literature. In one essay in the journal Current Science -why the editors were so careless in refereeing his paper is another matter for another day -he has cited an Italian paper on tunneling in the presence of groundwater and quoted one select passage that does nothing more than note the need for care in tunneling in such conditions.
However, what Padmanabhan omits is the fact that the bulk of the paper is actually devoted to how two tunnels were successfully (note, successfully) dug in two different ground conditions and not abandoned.
He also omits to mention that the two tunnels in question were indeed in entirely different ground conditions, one of them being in limestone-like conditions and the other dealing with a sandy aquifer.
Vaiko's petition exaggerates this misleading citation, making it clear that the intent is on stoking ill-informed fears rather than presenting evidence. Similar misrepresentation is also evident from reading the reference provided in the petition to NGT.
Other absurd allegations in the petitions, particularly from Vaiko, include claims that: the project is part of the development of "neutrino weapons"; that "factory-produced" neutrinos are different from the "billions of neutrinos flying around"; that groundwater may be radioactively contaminated; that the project was written by US scientists and it may be used for dumping nuclear waste.
The first is a fanciful reading of some speculative scientific literature -the curious reader may google it to his heart's content. The second is as laughable as saying that protons produced under different conditions are different -a smart schoolboy should be able to deal with that one. Third, there is no radioactivity involved in the experiment and indeed neutrinos are difficult to detect precisely because they induce very little radioactivity in material they collide with.
The fourth is an outright insult to the Indian scientific community, which has made significant contributions precisely in the area of neutrino studies.I ndeed, as a result of the delays that INO has faced, China's scientists, who entered this type of research after the Indian proposal was first mooted, have already implemented their project and begun to obtain significant scientific results.
The fifth is again frivolous since if nuclear waste is being dumped in the tunnel, scientists are hardly going to be able to work there. A favourite tactic of the INO opposition is to look up the work that scientists routinely do to verify that there are no unexpected dangers, and use it for further scare-mongering as in the reference to irradiation by high-intensity neutrino beams in the high court petition.
One hopes that both the Madras high court and the southern bench of the National Green Tribunal will take cognizance of the frivolity of the allegations and their lack of scientific basis. But beyond this immediate concern is the larger challenge of dealing with this "new" obscurantism, which pretends to speak in the name of environmental concerns, hijacking democratic debate by wild, unsubstantiated statements and the false attribution of motives.
Indeed at the end of the day this new obscurantism is no different from the obscurantist fear of eclipses and assorted ill-omens, trading, as does its older counterpart, on the woeful lack of a scientific temper.
At a time, when it is opined that "ancient Indian aeronautics" knew how to fly backwards, while simultaneously the hocking of the country's talent to the highest bidder is hailed as economic achievement, projects such as INO deserve the full support of the government, judiciary and democratic public opinion.
(T Jayaraman: The author is a physicist by training and professor , school of habitat studies, at Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai)
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Tunnel-vision-blocks-neutrino-lab-progress/articleshow/46358125.cms
After years of work to make the project take off, INO is again the subject of multiple attacks in judicial fora from a section of so-called environmentalist opinion, joined by some political leaders who have taken an attitude of unremitting hostility to the project.
The first is a writ petition filed before the Madurai bench of the Madras high court by MDMK leader Vaiko. The second is a petition by the Tamil Nadu NGO, Poovulagin Nanbargal, before the southern bench of the National Green Tribunal. How valid are the bewildering array of allegations that have been levelled over the years against the project? We cannot call these "concerns," as they have ignored the detailed information that has been provided by the project proponents on their website hosted at the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (http:www.ino.tifr.res.in), one of India's premier research institutions and a project partner. Not only is information provided in detail, but, in a welcome move, it has also been presented in both Tamil and Malayalam.
Standard environmental concerns have all been dealt with in the FAQs section on the website and need no repetition here. For instance, the area where the exit point of the tunnel is to be located is not a forest region.
The cover consists mainly of thorny bushes, and is officially classified as poromboke (or waste) land -hence no issues regarding land acquisition either. Since most of the construction will be underground, the question of disturbing the region's vegetation cover on a large scale does not arise. Several other queries relating, for instance, to managing the dust that will be generated, or storage of the muck that comes from tunnel boring, have all been dealt with. Further, the clearance notification of the ministry of environment and forests with the prescribed safeguards is provided on the website.
Having clearly no argument to derail the project on such obvious grounds, its opponents have for several years now resorted to a number of other fanciful allegations, some of them reproduced in the two judicial petitions filed recently . Would the project, in its current location, endanger groundwater resources? It will not, as a matter of fact, since there is no groundwater to be found 1,200 metres below surface in the hard rock of the tunnelling zone known as charnockite.
This incidentally has nothing to do with the "charnockite aquifers" referred to by groundwater studies, which talk about either the weather-eroded surface layers of charrnockite rock or the valleys of soil and earth to be found amidst charnockite rock, neither of which has any relevance below 1,200 metres of hard rock.
Would the blasting endanger water reservoirs and their dams in neighbouring Idukki district and the dozen nearby in Tamil Nadu? There is absolutely no evidence that this would be the case, especially given the limited extent of the tunnel.
The extravagant claims in the petition are based on write-ups from one of the die-hard opponents of the project, V T Padmanaban, who has developed a unique style of misrepresenting scientific literature. In one essay in the journal Current Science -why the editors were so careless in refereeing his paper is another matter for another day -he has cited an Italian paper on tunneling in the presence of groundwater and quoted one select passage that does nothing more than note the need for care in tunneling in such conditions.
However, what Padmanabhan omits is the fact that the bulk of the paper is actually devoted to how two tunnels were successfully (note, successfully) dug in two different ground conditions and not abandoned.
He also omits to mention that the two tunnels in question were indeed in entirely different ground conditions, one of them being in limestone-like conditions and the other dealing with a sandy aquifer.
Vaiko's petition exaggerates this misleading citation, making it clear that the intent is on stoking ill-informed fears rather than presenting evidence. Similar misrepresentation is also evident from reading the reference provided in the petition to NGT.
Other absurd allegations in the petitions, particularly from Vaiko, include claims that: the project is part of the development of "neutrino weapons"; that "factory-produced" neutrinos are different from the "billions of neutrinos flying around"; that groundwater may be radioactively contaminated; that the project was written by US scientists and it may be used for dumping nuclear waste.
The first is a fanciful reading of some speculative scientific literature -the curious reader may google it to his heart's content. The second is as laughable as saying that protons produced under different conditions are different -a smart schoolboy should be able to deal with that one. Third, there is no radioactivity involved in the experiment and indeed neutrinos are difficult to detect precisely because they induce very little radioactivity in material they collide with.
The fourth is an outright insult to the Indian scientific community, which has made significant contributions precisely in the area of neutrino studies.I ndeed, as a result of the delays that INO has faced, China's scientists, who entered this type of research after the Indian proposal was first mooted, have already implemented their project and begun to obtain significant scientific results.
The fifth is again frivolous since if nuclear waste is being dumped in the tunnel, scientists are hardly going to be able to work there. A favourite tactic of the INO opposition is to look up the work that scientists routinely do to verify that there are no unexpected dangers, and use it for further scare-mongering as in the reference to irradiation by high-intensity neutrino beams in the high court petition.
One hopes that both the Madras high court and the southern bench of the National Green Tribunal will take cognizance of the frivolity of the allegations and their lack of scientific basis. But beyond this immediate concern is the larger challenge of dealing with this "new" obscurantism, which pretends to speak in the name of environmental concerns, hijacking democratic debate by wild, unsubstantiated statements and the false attribution of motives.
Indeed at the end of the day this new obscurantism is no different from the obscurantist fear of eclipses and assorted ill-omens, trading, as does its older counterpart, on the woeful lack of a scientific temper.
At a time, when it is opined that "ancient Indian aeronautics" knew how to fly backwards, while simultaneously the hocking of the country's talent to the highest bidder is hailed as economic achievement, projects such as INO deserve the full support of the government, judiciary and democratic public opinion.
(T Jayaraman: The author is a physicist by training and professor , school of habitat studies, at Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai)
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Tunnel-vision-blocks-neutrino-lab-progress/articleshow/46358125.cms
Seva Lamberdar- Posts : 6594
Join date : 2012-11-29 -
Re: Tunnel vision blocks neutrino lab progress
by Seva Lamberdar Wed Feb 25, 2015 10:40 am
This article reminds me of the political campaigns at elections during the 1950s.
There was a hydroelectric generating station in our area. People living in the lower side of the generating station and using the water coming out of the generating station (after producing electricity by running the generator) were being told by some candidates that the Govt. is giving you fake / empty water to drink and use in your fields, after it has already taken out the real "juice" (electricity) from the water inside the generating station. Some people started believing that they and their farm animals will become weak and sick and that their crops won't grow properly because of the fake / second hand water and went on to vote on that basis.
There was a hydroelectric generating station in our area. People living in the lower side of the generating station and using the water coming out of the generating station (after producing electricity by running the generator) were being told by some candidates that the Govt. is giving you fake / empty water to drink and use in your fields, after it has already taken out the real "juice" (electricity) from the water inside the generating station. Some people started believing that they and their farm animals will become weak and sick and that their crops won't grow properly because of the fake / second hand water and went on to vote on that basis.
Seva Lamberdar- Posts : 6594
Join date : 2012-11-29 -
Similar topics» Pakis dig a tunnel......
» China blocks Economist and Time websites over articles critical of Xi Jinping
» Acchhey Din ( Good days ): Narendra Modi blocks public access to wealth declarations by his ministers
» China wants to build an 8,000-mile underwater train tunnel to America
» Vision test
» China blocks Economist and Time websites over articles critical of Xi Jinping
» Acchhey Din ( Good days ): Narendra Modi blocks public access to wealth declarations by his ministers
» China wants to build an 8,000-mile underwater train tunnel to America
» Vision test
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum