According to the Father of the Nation, Mahatma Gandhiji, there are 7 social evils as enunciated by him:[Web site

: http://www.mkgandhi.org/mgmnt.htm#commerce

1.Wealth without Work,

2.Pleasure without Conscience,

3.Knowledge without Character,

4.Commerce  without Morality, 5. Science without Humanity,

6.Religion without Sacrifice,

7.Politics Without Principle.

Out of these social evils, the one on Science without Humanity seems to be more applicable in the present case of Dr.Abdul Kalam who visited Nuclear Plant at Kudankulam where he asserted that there was no need for any panic as the reactor had sophisticated safety features and hence there is no need for panic since it is only a boon to the future generation.  He emphasized “ I am a scientist, I am technologist, I support nuclear energy along with solar and wind power as it is a clean and green energy which is very much required for the country’s rapid growth now”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koodankulam_Nuclear_Power_Plant

He further stated that the reactors located at 13.5 m height would not be effected even by a Tsunami nor would an earthquake threaten them, as Kudankulam is not within any seismic zone.  The scientists have taken into account all these natural calamities before designing and fabricating the plant.  While 99% of the spent fuel would be processed for reuse in the reactors, the remaining one percent would be converted and protected within a thickly walled underground concrete containment and no waste from the reactor will be dumped in the sea.   The two 1,000 MWe VVER rectors are being constructed at Kudankulam with Russian assistance at an outlay of Rs.13,171 crores. The above statements made by Dr.Abdul Kalam clearly show that as a scientist and technologist , he is certifying the safety angle.

But according to the fundamental safety principles of the International Atomic Energy there are 10 safety principles formulated by the experts on the basis of which safety requirements are developed and safety measures implemented to ensure comprehensive safety of the plant and the environment for ensuring sustainable development for public health and national prosperity.

http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1133_scr.pdf

The following are the safety principles.

1First principle is Responsibility for safety must rest with the plant management responsible for facilities and activities that give rise to radiation risks.

2]Second principle pertains to role of the Governments that promotes an effective legal Governmental framework for safety including an independent regulatory  body to be established and sustained.

3]Third principle pertains to establishing and sustaining of an effective leadership and management for safety in the Organisational authorities dealing with the plant and its activities that are responsible for radiation risks.

4]The fourth principle deals with justification of facilities and activities that give rise to radiation risks and they must be planned to yield an overall benefit.

5]The fifth principle deals with environmental protection such that the protection must be optimized to provide the highest level of safety that can be achieved by  the right methods of planning in preference to wrong methods of planning the siting of the reactors for national prosperity.

6]The sixth principle deals with limitation of risks to individual persons and the people living in the zone of influence of the reactors by taking measures for controlling radiation risks so that no person bears an unacceptable risk of harm even under accidents due to natural or man-made hazards

7]The seventh principle deals with protection of present and future generations of people and their environment against radiation risks by proper selection of sites for the reactors based upon the environmental  carrying capacity of the region.

8]The eighth principle deals with prevention of accidents by taking all practical steps to prevent and mitigate nuclear or radiation accidents by proper design of the plant including redundancy and engineered safety features.

9]The ninth principle deals with Emergency preparedness and response system for nuclear or radiation incidents by taking practical measures in case of routine incidents and by preparing emergency preparedness and response plans in case of radiation risks to the public during an emergency and these emergency plans have to be implemented through periodical exercises on the basis of informed consent of the people living upto specified zones extending to about 80 km as specified under the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission standards.

10]The tenth principle deals with protective actions to reduce existing or unregulated radiation risks and the actions must be justified and optimized including remediation measures due to uncontrolled release of radio nuclides into the air, water, soil and environment for restoring the damaged eco-systems.

Among the vast majority of common people,there is no proper understanding about what is meant by Nuclear plant safety and what constitutes adequate safety of a hazardous nuclear plant.  It is apparent that nuclear plant safety is not merely a pure technical matter and it is not simply calculating risk and comparing the results with a numerical  target.  First of all ,who are the persons who should have  a say in deciding on nuclear plant safety? Obviously,it is  the nuclear plant management, the designer, the regulator, the public enquiry inspector, the responsible Ministers, concerned Members of the Parliament and the state legislatures and the public.  Of course, the legal responsibility for the safety mainly rests with the  plant operating organization while all the other parties are part of a chain of accountability and are expected to make a decision on the safety of the plant based upon its imp[acts on the present and future generations of the people and their environment.  While the plant operators view safety as mainly concerned with technical matters , modern thinkers recognize that any technical basis for the management of risks must be supported by a broader social view of how safety should be provided by recognizing that the opinions of the public should underlie the evaluation of the risks which will impact the people and their environment.  It is essential to consider three basic public safety goals.

The first is the suitable legal frame work that governs the rules and regulations for preventing, controlling and managing the hazards due to the establishment and operation of nuclear plants which is basically the ALARP (as low as reasonably possible) requirement of radiation emissions into the environment.

The second goal of public safety pertains to plant management set up which deals with formulation of technical safety goals to satisfy the technical people but which as a philosophical basis can be explained and justified to the public.  It consists of the plant operators and the nuclear regulatory authorities with a regulated dialogue between them for continuous safety assessment which needs to be open and comprehensible so that the experts can recognise that the public will gain confidence in the plant management and the public get a feeling that all possible means are employed to secure their safety.

The third safety goal deals with the safety net which includes an efficient emergency plan that will come into action in the event of a nuclear plant accident.  The public generally believe that what can happen will happen one day or the other and hence they must be prepared to face the consequences of an accident and consequently the plant management must prepare the relevant risk analysis, disaster scenario and Emergency Preparedness plans and present them before the public for obtaining their responses for taking necessary remedial actionsand for obtaining their consent for the successful operation of the plant in the long run.  The technical safety goals involve probabilistic safety Assessment[PSA] with information about the nuclear incidents, minor accidents and maximum credible accidents and their impacts on public health, public injuries and potential deaths in case of an explosion for man-made and natural disasters including sabotage, terrorist attacks as had happened in September, 2011 at the world Trade Center In USA, the bomb attacks by the British over the dams in Germany and natural disaster like earthquakes, tornadoes, tsunamis and extreme floods.

Dr.Abdul Kalam has not taken into consideration all the different principles of nuclear safety and all the relevant goals of public safety pertaining to the Kudankulam nuclear plant. In fact the crucial reports pertaining to Environmental Impact Analysis including the risk analysis, disaster scenario due to nuclear accidents and the Emergency preparedness plans have not been prepared as per national laws and guidelines followed at International level for ensuring safety of the plant, the public and their environment.  In fact the cost-benefit analysis of the plant including the economic implications of the Civil liability Act,2010 and the Pric e-Anderson Act of USA for nuclear plant accidents have been perhaps ignored .  Consequently the approach of Dr.Abdul Kalam in assessing the environmental and economic impacts of the plant are highly under estimated due to misinformation furnished to him by the  Kudankulam nuclear plant authorities.  No attempt has been made on the feasibility of implementation of disaster management plans as envisaged by the National laws and International guidelines.

The Nuclear Plant promoters know that they cannot believe in the safety ofc their own N uclear plants in both United states and India.In usa,the Nuclear  plant owners pay only two percent of the costs of damage to the victims of a nuclear reactor accident and the rest of the compensation is paid by the subsidies provided by the Price-Anderson Act and the US Government which means the  tax payers money.Similarly,the Indian Government is planning to pay the victims of Nuclear accident from the taxes paid by the common man.Thus safety of Nuclear plants is not accepted by the  Nuclear plant operators or the suppliers from foreign countries and the poor man in India is going to be heavily taxed for the sake of the nuclear industry and this is highly unjust to susidisde the industry that is a slow killer  of mankind and Nature.It is beyond comprehension how a highly educated person like Dr.Kalam chose to ignore these realities about hazards of Nuclear power and how can any patrriot promote a risky industry to the detriment of the life ansd culture of  Indian population?

Under the circumstances the declared viewsand assertion of Dr.Kalam on safety, economy and feasibility and public acceptinility of the nuclear plant at Kudankulam from the Gandhian perspective seems to be that of a scientist without humanity and consequently becomes one of the 7 social evils.  Since the impact of such a tunnel-visioned one sided scientific view withouta human face about the advantages and disadvantages of the nuclear plant from the perspective Gandhian ideology  falls under the category of one of the 7 social evils and thereby Dr.Abdul Kalam can be considered to have unknowingly committed a social crime because such a non-comprehensive view supporting a major silent killer industry constitutes a major environmentally unethical act and a social crime against mankind and nature.  For more scientific detailed clarifications on the hazards of this major nuclear power plant see the following websites:

http://tshivajirao.blogspot.com/2011/10/kudankulam-nuclear-plant-explosion.html
http://tshivajirao.blogspot.com/2011/09/why-indian-nuclear-plants-are-bound-to.html
http://tshivajirao.blogspot.com/2011/10/people-question-experts-on-safety-of.html
http://tshivajirao.blogspot.com/2011/08/diaster-consequences-of-kovvada-nuclear.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Liability_Bill