Email
Print
ShareIn the case of India, it happened with a 24-year gap -- first in 1974 and then in 1998. We are not interested when any one speaks of nuclear power. It is the talk of big bombs that excite us. That is why we were all ears when nuclear and defence scientist K Santhanam talked about the low thermonuclear yields of the 1998 explosion.
Contrary to the naïve general belief, scientists are not, as a rule, absent-minded professors lost in their quest for the equations and truths of the universe. They are flesh-and-blood souls, who squabble and squeal among themselves and that is when they let the little, harmless secrets out, never the state secrets that the strategic experts and spies want to know.
All we need to do is to treat our scientists the way we treat our bureaucrats and politicians, our academics and businessmen -- add a pinch of salt to much of their peppered stuff.
Whatever Santhanam and Homi Sethna, R Chidamabram and former president APJ Abdul Kalam may have to say, the truth about the May 1998 nuclear explosions may prove to be elusive. Two retired scientists, N Sarma and B Banerjee in their, Nuclear Power In India A Critical History (Rupa; 2008) have discussed in Appendix 7 -- the main text of 79 pages is about nuclear reactors producing electricity -- that both in 1974 and in 1998, the yields of the explosions have been disputed both in India and abroad.
They point out that in 1974 the official claim of the yield was stated to be 12 kilotonnes (kt). Apparently, some of the Indian disputes at the time said that it was less than 12, while some others outside India put it at 4 to 6kt. The official claim for the 1998 explosions is 55.2kt but they were once again disputed. There are two ways of testing the magnitude of the explosions. First, through seismic waves generated by the explosion and the second through radio-chemical analysis of the nuclear material from the test sites.
While there are no details of the radio-chemical analysis of the 1974 explosion, the one for 1998 has given a yield of 50 plus or minus 10kt. There is a difference of about five plus or minus kt between the yields measured in terms of seismic waves and radio-chemical analysis. Sarma and Banerjee in their little book quietly drop mischievous hints that the explosions may not have been what they have been claimed to be.
The general notion that there is no scope for disagreement among scientists, even when they have ulterior motives for doing so, is a myth created by the scientists themselves to impress the laity. Yes. Scientists want to wield power and their control over destructive devices, including stuff like nuclear bombs, is one of them.
Nuclear scientists in India have behaved more in collegial fashion. Many of them expressed strong opposition to the India-US civil nuclear deal in 2007, but after a few meetings with Manmohan Singh, many of them accepted the government's position without much ado. But they did not explain to the public what convinced them that going ahead with the deal would be for the good of the country. Scientists in general and nuclear scientists in particular will have to learn to speak their minds.
It would be much better if the scientists were to quarrel and bicker more often than they usually do because in the process they are likely to reveal partial details which members of the public can use to piece together the whole truth.
Unfortunately, scientists in India, specially the nuclear scientists, have not been as forthright as they ought to be. Most of them have been toeing the line of the government of the day.
