Thosethoriumsandsagain Questions remain

Apropos the lead editorial, “Nuclear doubts” (May 24), one has been hearing of the potential bonanza that awaits India through its vast deposits of thorium sands for ever so long. No less a personage than prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru made frequent references in the 1950s to the Kerala sands as possible tickets to India’s rapid advancement. Yet nearly 70 years on, there is no thorium-based nuclear plant in sight, despite some encouraging noises emanating frequently from the atomic energy establishment.

There could be two principal reasons for this. First, the two major nuclear weapons states, the United States and Russia, had their weapons and power programmes intricately linked. The many possible advantages of thorium-based nuclear energy such as safety, abundant raw material and relatively easier disposal of spent material have long been known and discussed, yet not much thought was given to it, because it had no weapons possibility. That remained true even after the Chernobyl and Fukushima periods, which raised serious questions about the prevailing modes of nuclear power generation.

The second factor is linked to the first in an indirect way. With no weapons spin-off, the economics of thorium-based plants becomes unattractive. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists commented in 2012 that using thorium with existing water-cooling technologies was not quite proven and would entail much higher investment without matching savings.

So we still sit atop mounds of thorium sands nursing (fading) dreams about exploiting them as we watch the world continuing to use uranium, other fossil fuels and even the wind and the sun as possible alternative sources of cheap, if not always clean, power.

Shreekant Sambrani Baroda With reference to the editorial, “Lessons from coal” (May 24), the judgment of a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) court to jail three senior IAS officers on charges of corruption in awarding a coal block in Madhya Pradesh to a private party in 2006-07 raises some questions as well.

It is difficult to believe that the officers working under the prime minister himself, known for procedural correctness and integrity, would have dared to break the rules to benefit from this on their own and for their good only. The fact that the CBI dropped the case during the United Progressive Alliance rule and reopened it under the Supreme Court’s directive strengthens the doubt.

As for the verdict, the issue was whether it was a case of utter inefficiency, a bona fide error of judgement on the part of the accused or corruption. The court decided it was a case of corruption despite lack of proof of any ostensible gain to the accused. It should have suggested the CBI to probe the matter further to see whether other parties, who benefited most from the decision, were involved.

Besides, the principle is that the decision-maker is responsible for the consequences of his action. In this case the then PM should have been held responsible. It was his duty to ascertain from the accused whether the procedure was followed properly instead of waiting for feedback from them. Some strictures or observations on his blind faith would have been in order.

As for the after-effect of this decision, it is now unavoidable that the amended Prevention of Corruption Bill pending in the Rajya Sabha is passed — it protects honest bureaucrats by bringing in the issue of mens rea and protects retired government servants by requiring government approval before prosecution.

Y G Chouksey Pune