Nuclear Energy

Employees Association (BFEA) wrote to the director setting forth ten safety related demands,
including the appointment of a full time safety officer. The letter also recounted two previous
incidents where workers were exposed to high levels of radiation in the past two years, and how
officials had always given some or the other excuse to explain away the failure to follow safety
procedures. Once again there was no response from management. In desperation, some months later
the union resorted to a strike. The management’s response was to transfer some of the key workers
involved in the agitation and give notice to others; two days later, all striking workers returned to
work. Finally, the union leaked information about the radiation exposure to the press.
Once the news became public, the BARC director, in a press conference six months after the
accident, grudgingly admitted this was the“worst accident in radiation exposure in the history of
nuclear India”. In the same breath, he put the blame for the accident on “over enthusiasm” and
“error of judgment” on part of the workers! He however refused to reveal anything about the exact
medical condition of the workers, including the radiation dosage received by them, except that the
workers were “cheerful”. dxl
A reporter from Tehelka, an independent magazine published from Delhi reputed for investigative journalism, in 2010 tried to trace the
whereabouts of the six workers who had been exposed to high level of radiation due to the accident. The medical superintendent of the DAE
established hospital in Kalpakkam, told him: “One of them died, but not due to radiation. The rest are fine.” But his efforts to locate the five surviving
worker came to naught.dxli
Tehelka also found evidence of increase of cancer and other diseases among the 30,000
workers living in the five villages that fall within 5 km radius from the plant. While the local public
health centre denied information to Tehelka about cancer-related deaths among workers saying the
information was sensitive, DAE officials maintained that the radiation emission levels were too low
to cause problems. dxlii
More recently, in the Kaiga incident of 2009 (discussed in Part I above), where different
reports say that between 35 and 250 workers were affected, the AERB in its press release of
November 29, 2010 said that only two workers received a dose exceeding the 30 millisievert
maximum limit stipulated by the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board. India's nuclear authorities also
trivialised the hazards posed by tritium and claimed it was a non-toxic substance. Whereas tritium is
a beta-ray emitter and can cause extensive, irreversible damage. dxliii
The DAE can lie, and lie profusely, about accidents at its plants, deny that any radiation
leakage took place, lie about the impact of this leakage on its workers, and nothing can be done
about it. The Atomic Energy Act of 1962 makes it totally unaccountable to the people of India.
Temporary workers
The DAE's attitude to temporary workers is even more criminal. While the permanent
workers have their union to protect their interests, the temporary workers have no such protection.
The DAE ruthlessly takes advantage of their poverty and helplessness to make them do the most
dangerous tasks, such as cleaning up radioactive materials. No record is kept of how many such
132