On August 6, 1945, the first nuclear bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, to be followed on Nagasaki three days later, which led to the end of the Second World War. As the world remembers the horrors and after affects of using a nuclear bomb on Hiroshima Day, there is an overall agreement among all countries about not using nuclear bombs to resolve any conflict.

However, the current crisis of addressing global warming and climate change has brought back the issue to the centre stage. Nuclear energy is claimed to be “clean and green” — as there is no CO2 emission, which leads to global warming. Even the 123 Indo-US nuclear deal is aimed at helping India achieve energy self-sufficiency and reduce its dependence on fossil fuel import.

Though the use of nuclear energy to produce power was started as late as 1955, there are 442 nuclear reactors in the world producing 16 per cent of electric power, mostly in the industrialised countries. Among them France is leading with 76 per cent, followed by Lithuania (73 per cent), Sweden and Switzerland. There are no plans to build nuclear power plants in US since 1978. In India the share of nuclear power in the power sector is about 3 per cent. India hopes to increase it to 10 per cent in 10 years.

The nuclear fuel cycle is one of the dirtiest operations. Mining uranium from the remote rural hinterland has environmental and health hazards. Jaduagda in Jharkand is an example of how the local population suffers due to radiation for generations. The open cast mining and transportation of the ore consumes large amounts of fossil fuel.

Advocates of nuclear energy claim that reprocessed fuel can be used to run nuclear reactors, reducing the dependence on fresh uranium supply. However, reprocessing releases large amount of radioactive waste into the environment.

By 2000 the nuclear industry created 2,01,000 tonnes of fuel rods that are highly radioactive. This plutonium waste will remain radioactive up to 2, 40,000 years or 12,000 generations. Industrial countries dump nuclear waste in poor countries.

In addition to these risks, an element of human or technological error can cause irreparable damage to man and nature. The Chernobyl and Three Mile Island accidents are stark reminders of the possible outcome of fatal accidents in harnessing nuclear power. A recent study conducted by the National Academy of Sciences said, “The cooling pools of nuclear reactors store 30 times more radio active material than contained in a reactor core. A terrorist attack on these pools could cause disasters worse than Chernobyl”.

The distinction between the use of nuclear power for peaceful purposes or defence is like two sides of the same coin, once you have the nuclear power; you have the power to create the nuclear bomb.

The obvious link between the profit making military-industry nexus and the 123 Indo US nuclear deal is embedded in the accord. Our leaders and nuclear scientists are keen on this. They are least bothered about the security of future generations.

‘Atom for peace’ is like chasing a mirage. The toxic legacy of nuclear power proves that it is neither “clean, green nor cheap”.

It is not a solution to resolve global warming. It is bound to create more problems for mankind.