Even a minor accident in Ruppur may have a far-reaching and widespread adverse effect. Bangladesh, in my opinion, is not the country meant to install a Russian-made nuclear power plant. A Bhopal-like union carbide type of tragedy with much greater intensity and long-term impact will always be a real and perceived risk.

 Dhaka and Moscow have signed a preliminary deal for peaceful use of nuclear energy. If everything goes according to plan, this will eventually lead to a nuclear power plant at Ruppur.

   ‘The framework agreement will lay the basis for detailed discussions leading to the signing of the final deal on Russian assistance for the installation of the Ruppur Power Plant by 2017,’ a science and ICT ministry spokesman told newsmen (New Nation, May 15).

   This is not to say that the Russian-aided Ruppur nuclear plant is a fait accompli or a done deal. It would be premature to factor in the electricity produced from this plant in the cumulative kilowatt calculation and the vision 2021 projection of digital Bangladesh. The former Soviet Union, predecessor of the current Russian Federation, and the then Pakistan had signed a similar deal in 1960.

   In 1980, then President Ziaur Rahman had expressed the desire for a nuclear plant during his New York visit. This was little over a year after the Three Mile Island accident. When the expatriate Bangladeshis raised serious reservations about the safety factor, Zia, I remember, downplayed the risk. Knowing what we know now, especially after the Three Mile Island and similar such accidents and the Chernobyl disaster, thank God the plant was not built here in the 1960s or the 1980s.

   In an obsequious and glowing editorial, The Daily Star (May 23, 2010) described the nuclear accord with Russia as a ‘milestone’, electricity crisis solver, new direction in ‘policy prioritisation and diversification’, serving ‘enlightened national interest’, etc.

   One should take this falling head over heal and going overboard, verging on irrational optimism and avid admiration, with a grain of salt. Serious consideration of negative safety consequences should warrant genuine reservation and trepidation. The editorial makes a cursory passing mention of the safety concerns.

   The concerns are varied; prevention of accidents and radioactive spill, possible theft of enriched uranium or radioactive material that may result in a ‘dirty bomb’ in the hands of the terrorists, and storage of radioactive waste among them. These concerns in addition to developing a nuclear weapon have led to vehement opposition of the US and its European allies against the so-called peaceful use of nuclear energy by Iran. There is always the likelihood that the proposed nuclear reactor here will need clearance from the US and influential European donor countries and Japan.

   The popular 1970s and 1980s concept of an ultimate nuclear disaster was termed ‘The China Syndrome’. It is a hypothesis of an extreme nuclear meltdown in which molten reactor core products breach the barriers below and flow through the floor of the containment building. China syndrome refers to the most severe meltdown in a nuclear reactor. The origin of the phrase is the fictional concept that the nuclear material will burn a hole from the United States to the other side of the world. China is a metaphor, since the opposite side of the globe from the US is actually the Indian Ocean.

   The 1979 movie, ‘The China Syndrome’, starring Jane Fonda, Michael Douglas and Jack Lemmon, is a fictional account of such a terrible accident. The disaster was witnessed by a TV reporter (Fonda) and a cameraman (Douglas) at a nuclear power plant outside Los Angeles, as part of a series of news reports on energy production. The plant’s official statement referred to the near-meltdown as an unanticipated malfunction. The film uncovers the truth that the plant came very close to the ‘China syndrome’ and the official cover up.

   The film was released on March 16, 1979, 12 days before the Three Mile Island nuclear accident in Pennsylvania, USA. On March 28, 1979 at Three Mile Island nuclear power plant near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania a cooling malfunction caused part of the core in a reactor to melt. The temperature in the primary coolant rose. This in turn caused the reactor to shut down automatically. A relief valve failed to close, but the instrumentation did not reveal the fact, and so much of the primary coolant drained away. The core suffered severe damage.

   The operators were unable to diagnose or respond to the unplanned shutdown of the reactor. Deficient control room instrumentation and inadequate emergency response were the root causes of the accident. Even though there were no adverse health effects or injuries from the accident, no nuclear power plant has been commissioned in the United States since then (no new construction since 1977) due to tremendous safety concerns despite severe recent shortage of electricity in parts of the country.

   After a 40-year interval, new units with much stringent safety standards may come on line in the US in 2018 (Nuclear Power in the USA, World Nuclear Association, May 10), coincidentally a year after the planned completion of the proposed Ruppur nuclear power plant with Russian assistance.

   In March 2009 on the 30th anniversary of Three Mile Island accident, TIME magazine compiled details of ten worst nuclear disasters. It included the Three Mile Island accident with the 1986 Chernobyl disaster in the former Soviet Union topping the list.

   On April 26, 1986, reactor number four at the Chernobyl plant in Ukraine (part of the Soviet Union) had a meltdown. The resulting fire sent a plume of radioactive fallout into the atmosphere and over an extensive area in the Soviet Union, Eastern, Western and Northern Europe. Large areas in Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia were evacuated and 336,000 people were resettled. A 2005 report prepared by the Chernobyl Forum, led by the International Atomic Energy Agency, attributed roughly 50 direct deaths (including nine children) and estimated that there may be up to 4,000 additional cancer deaths over time among the approximately 600,000 highly exposed people.

   Back then even Bangladesh felt the ripple effect of the disaster as imported powder milk from Poland was contaminated. The contamination of fish caused short-term concern in the United Kingdom and Germany and in the long-term in affected areas of Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia as well as in parts of Scandinavia.

   The two accidents were similar in nature but faulty and inadequate safety measures in the Russian built reactor caused lot more damage and casualties. The accident raised concerns about the safety of Soviet nuclear power industry, slowing its expansion for many years and forcing the Soviet government to become less secretive.

   Apart from the two aforementioned mishaps, the other eight nuclear disasters in the TIME magazine list were:

   Goiania accident, September 13, 1987: A junkyard dealer in Goiania, Brazil, broke open an abandoned radiation therapy machine and removed a highly radioactive piece of cesium chloride. Nearly 245 persons were exposed to radiation resulting in the contamination of several city blocks which had to be demolished.

   K-431 Chazhma Bay, August 10, 1985: During refuelling in Vladivostok, Russia, this Echo II submarine suffered an explosion, sending radioactive gas into the air. Ten sailors were killed and 49 persons were injured.

   Palomares incident, January 17, 1966: A US B52 bomber collided with KC-135 tanker during mid-air refuelling over Spain. The tanker was destroyed and the B52 broke apart, releasing four hydrogen bombs. Two bombs detonated on ground impact, contaminating 490 acre area with radioactive plutonium.

   Thule accident, January 21, 1968: A fire aboard a B-52 forced the crew to bail out. The bomber crashed onto the sea near Thule Air Base in Greenland, causing the nuclear payload to rupture, resulting in widespread radioactive contamination.

   Tokaimura nuclear accident, September 30, 1999: The worst Japanese nuclear accident happened in a uranium reprocessing facility in Tokaimura, near Tokyo. It took place while workers were mixing liquid uranium.

   Tomsk-7 explosion, April 6, 1993: The accident in the city of Tomsk in Siberia took place after a tank exploded. The explosion released a cloud of radioactive gas.

   Windscale fire, October 10, 1957: The incident occurred near Cumberland when the graphite core of a British nuclear reactor caught fire. The fire resulted in a release of much radioactive contamination.

   Yucca Flat, December 18. 1970: After the test explosion of a 10 kiloton nuclear device underneath Yucca Flat in Nevada, the plug sealing the shaft from the surface failed and radioactive material was released into the atmosphere. Eighty six workers were exposed to radiation.

   The list indicates how diverse the accidents can be in varied locations and different countries. Traditionally, the Soviet reactors’ safety records have been inadequate and unsatisfactory, according to western experts. There have been numerous accidents not mentioned in the above list, including radioactive leaks in Russian nuclear submarines and various nuclear plants and storage facilities.

   The tangible fear is that the Russian Federation will unload a dated and vintage nuclear reactor with dubious and substandard safety record. That combined with authorities playing fast and loose with facts, and customary safety lax in this country may lead to a nuclear catastrophe.

   Even a minor accident in Ruppur may have a far-reaching and widespread adverse effect. Bangladesh, in my opinion, is not the country meant to install a Russian-made nuclear power plant. A Bhopal-like union carbide type of tragedy with much greater intensity and long-term impact will always be a real and perceived risk.

   Bangladesh should concentrate on the good use of coal and natural gas, and explore alternative sources of renewable energy such as solar and wind power to meet long term electricity needs. A Russian supplied highly risky and worrisome nuclear power plant in a densely-populated country is not an optimal solution. For much stronger set of reasons than those for which open-pit coalmining is not feasible at Phulbari.