Bring on the obituaries for nuclear energy

The tragedy of the unprecedented earthquake and tsunami in Japan has given all the so-called experts and environmentalists to pressurise governments around the world to give up power generation using nuclear energy. And they have forced many editorials, which are virtually writing obituaries for nuclear energy.

Thanks to the 24 hour breaking and sensationalising news channels, those opposing the Jaitapur nuclear power project have got a new lease of life. They have been claiming that the earthquake has shown how dangerous nuclear energy is and are asking the government to think of other sources to generate electricity. What other sources? None have a clear answer about it. Many of them say that renewable sources of energy should be used. The proposed Jaitapur project would generate around 10,000 MW of electricity, once fully operational. Do the opponents have an idea, how much land would be required to generate the same amount of power using wind energy? A rule of thumb indicates that roughly 60 acres/MW are required if wind farms are built on land. This means, roughly 6,00,000 acres of land will be required to build a Jaitapur equivalent of wind farm. Do we have that much land to spare, even when farming is possible alongside a wind turbine?

If catastrophic disasters were to shape events in history, we perhaps would never be driving cars or flying in aeroplanes.The debris of Air France flight 447 hasn't yet been recovered. The crash caused a loss of 228 lives. Over the decades, commercial aircraft have crashed for various reasons and we have lost precious lives in these unfortunate incidents. This hasn't prevented the civil aviation sector from expanding like never before, nor has it stymied the development of new, better, larger and faster aeroplanes. So, why does nuclear energy invoke such fear?

Why isn't similar (or greater) contempt reserved for coal-fired power plants? Though they do not pose a threat of radiation contamination, but contamination of the environment due to fly ash and smoke has had an adverse effect on the people residing near such power plants for over generations. And when people talk of problems in disposing nuclear waste, they conveniently forget the havoc caused by fly-ash waste, which is gathering in landfills. In India, less than 50% of fly ash is recycled. Isn't it a problem? We do not have technology to safely dispose fly-ash, yet do not oppose coal-fired power plants.

The point I want to make here, is that we cannot wait beyond a certain limit to get started with enjoying the benefits of technology. We have to use and develop it side-by-side. Anticipate problems, solve them early and if mishaps or disasters occur, we should learn from them and improve designs and procedures accordingly. Writing such premature obituaries is not going to help in any manner. Nuclear power is currently cheapest among the clean methods to generate electricity and if India desires to achieve all-round development, it will have to make use of this source at some point of time. And the earlier it does, the better it would be.

I would like to end with an interesting quote, I heard the other day. "The earthquake and tsunami have resulted in the deaths of more than 10,000 persons in Japan. But the failure of the Fukushima nuclear power plants hasn't yet cause a single death."

Fifty years of James Bond (continued)

The year 2012 will see the Golden Jubilee of the James Bond series. Out of my interest in James Bond, and a habbit of analysing, I have tried to compare the actors who played James Bond over the past fifty years. This is the link for the first part.

The James Bond series was produced by EON productions. This then further passed on to MGM studios, who retained Albert Broccoli as the producer. From Dr. No onwards, the key ingredient was a person or organisation pitting Soviet Union against Britain or USA in some way or the other. The Bond series made good use of the Cold War. And that is why, there was a question about Bond's effectiveness, when they decided to make GoldenEye. With no Iron Curtain, whom would Bond be fighting?¹ GoldenEye did see Bond pitted against the remnants of the USSR, but the changed dynamics of world politics did provide Bond with new enemies to save the world from. So, this is my view of how the remaining Bond actors stand.

5. Pierce Brosnan: The person, whom most people born in the late 70s and 80s recognise as Bond.  If he is Bond, he is Brosnan. Brosnan had a huge task in hand. With Dalton's movies being panned by critics and people terming Dalton's Bond as one of the worst till date, the fate of James Bond, completely rested on Brosnan's shoulders. And he surely didn't disappoint. Brosnan's Bond was a huge improvement over Dalton's Bond. And he was much more humane than Connery and Moore. He did feel pain, both physical and emotional. His body language conveyed the emotions of very slight nervousness when in a difficult situation. He was much less vulnerable to seductions by women, when compared to Moore's Bond, perhaps comparable to Connery's Bond. His attitude was way better than Dalton's Bond. Brosnan's portrayal of Bond is considered crucial to the revival of the James Bond series.
6. Daniel Craig: Craig's selection as Bond met with a lot of criticism. Most people thought that Craig is not what Bond is, tall, suave and handsome. And they had the right to be apprehensive. After all, Dalton's failure as Bond was fresh in memories of many Bond fans. Craig débuted in Casino Royale, which was used to reboot the Bond series. In this movie, Bond was shown as a novice, aiming to earn his 00-stripes. Hence, he isn't the hardened 007, portrayed in the earlier Bond movies. Daniel Craig has performed the role of a novice Bond to perfection. He isn't the cool and dispassionate Bond, shown in the earlier movies and M has to remind him to not get emotional when on a mission.  Neither did he have the legendary Q's gadgets to assist him. Casino Royale was about the moulding of a 00 agent and Quantum of Solace saw the continuation. Now, it all depends on the next Bond movie  (which has been postponed indefinitely) to see if Craig can play the Bond we know. Cool, dispassionate and typical British in behaviour.

That was my take on the James Bond series. Wish that the latest Bond movie gets completed on time, to be released for Bond's 50th anniversary.

1. Courtesy Wikipedia

James Bond over the period of 50 years

The year 2012 will mark 50 years since the first James Bond movie appeared in theatres. The series was a run-away super-hit and Bond spawned a series of  secret agent movies. From Dr. No onwards to Casino Royale, Bond hasn't failed to charm us. The gadgets provided to him by Q were simply marvellous, for the lack of better words in my vocabulary. They bordered on the thin line between reality and sci-fi. In each movie, Bond uses Q's gadget only once and most of his cars (from Aston Martins to Lotus) aren't in a position to be used again. Here is my take on the actors who have essayed the role of the legendary secret agent.

1. Sean Connery: The first Bond. And the legend is etched in peoples' minds. Connery's Bond was stiff upper-lipped, a typical British characteristic. He maintained his cool even in the most adverse situations. Or perhaps didn't display any emotions even then. The only time Bond's nervousness showed out, was in Goldfinger, when the laser beam was slowly edging towards him and he would have died if Goldfinger didn't shut down the laser. Strictly businesslike attitude, though often seduced and got seduced by women. Even while seducing women, he carried a strict business like attitude. His humour too, was typical British humour. In short, a Bond who strictly went about doing his business, without any outward display of emotions.
2. George Lazenby: The guy got to play Bond in only one movie, On Her Majesty's Secret Service. So, he hasn't been able to leave a trend behind. To me, he appeared more humane than Connery's Bond. Although his Bond maintained a strict business like attitude, his emotions were more visible in some of the emotional scenes. But, he did seem uncomfortable in the last scene, where Bond holds his dead wife, Tracy, and says "We have all the time in the world". At that moment, Bond's voice isn't able to convey the true emotions of sorrow and pain.
3. Roger Moore: The man who played Bond in the most number of movies, seven. Moore's Bond was humorous, compared to the previous ones. His Bond also appeared a little careless, when on duty, but always managed to get out of difficult situations in a cool manner, which is typical of Bond. He also appears more prone to being seduced by women. Moore' Bond peeled off the typical British stiffness and made him more affable.
4. Timothy Dalton: Dalton got to play Bond in two movies. He tried to bring back a serious Bond, departing from Moore's Bond, but perhaps failed in doing so. According to me, Dalton is the least impressive of all Bonds over the years. Dalton's Bond appeared a harried and nervous character. The 'cool' attitude that defined Bond, was seldom seen in Dalton's Bond movies.

I think, I should stop here. Too much for one post. I shall write about the remaining two Bonds- Pierce Brosnan and Daniel Craig- in the next post.

IITs propose to hike fees by five-fold

In a recent news by rediff.com, there is a story that IITs have proposed to increase the fees for the UG degree course by five times. The proposal says that this will allow IITs to become independent of government funding and hence more autonomous. The committee headed by Dr. Kakodkar made this proposal to the government. The committee based its recommendations on the way IIMs charge fees in which, course-oriented degree programmes are financed completely by the students and research-oriented programmes are funded through various sources, like MHRD, DST, other government organisations and private industries.

But, how much justified is this? In another report, that appeared in the Times of India, the logic used was that one-third expenses should come from students, one-third from government and one-third generated through research projects. And there is a provision for extending low-interest loans to economically backward students. However, unlike foreign universities, where scholarships and tuition waiver are given to certain students, the committee doesn't make any mention of the same to students coming to IIT. Scholarships  in foreign universities are based on various criteria, ranging from academic excellence, sports excellence to ethnic origin. IITs already extend tuition waiver, free accommodation and free basic messing to students from the SC and ST category, irrespective of their economic status. Why don't they apply the economic backwardness criteria to these students?  If their parents are economically well to do, why should they be extended such privileges.  And there is nothing in store for meritorious students. Additionally, in foreign universities, the students have the opportunity to work on campus and earn some money to substitute their living expenses. The way IIT curriculum is designed today, it leaves the students with very less time to work and earn some money. Also, there exist no opportunities on IIT campuses, where students can be employed as part-timers. IITs, ironically, pride on the fact that their course structure is so intense that students have to over-work and under-sleep to stay on track.

Another point, the committee's report doesn't mention is the plan to increase revenues through research projects and technology licensing. Research projects, currently, are mainly available through government agencies like DST, DRDO, BRNS, etc. So, indirectly it is the government and tax-payer who are funding the research work. Contribution for research and consultancy projects through private industries is very low, when compared to the government sources. How do the IITs plan to change this scenario? Will there be an increase in contribution towards research from private firms and endowments? And, what about earning through technology licensing? How much do IITs currently earn through technology licensing? Will the committee set any reasonable revenue targets from technology licensing that IITs should aim to achieve?

And finally, IITs should reduce the stuff they dole out for free. Through its Centre for Distance Engineering Education Programme (CDEEP), IIT Bombay transmits its courses for free to institutes that are interested in beaming those to their students. Similarly, other IITs too have such distance education programmes. The question is, when IIT students pay fees to attend these courses, why should others view it for free? Why doesn't IIT charge them too for it? If financial autonomy is desired in running degree courses, then such free doling should be completely brought to a halt

To sum it up, costs of education have increased. But,the government has to play its role in keeping the cost incurred by students at a reasonable level. Schemes to bring in meritorious students should be there in place, in form on scholarships and not only low-interest loans. IITs can augment its earnings through other sources too, but there needs to be concrete planning to enhance those earnings. And finally, esteemed individuals and trusts in the Indian society should try and create endowments or chairs in IITs, rather than donating money to foreign universities. This would definitely attract some talent to the IITs.

Awful terminologies used in IPL

IPL-4 is back with a bang. With the new rounds of "auctions" over, there is a need to ponder over the terms used to describe the transactions between the franchisees and players. In a previous post too, I have expressed concern over wrong or harsh terms being used to describe such transactions. In today's politically correct world, if I were to call an African-American a Negro I am bound to face the boos of the people. Coming closer to home, if I were to abuse a Dalit, I can be prosecuted. You cannot call people "disabled" but have to call them "differently abled". There would be a huge hue and cry in newspapers if the older terms are used.

And that is why I am surprised, about the continuing usage of inappropriate terms in the IPL. First of all, the formation of teams, is termed an "auction" and team owners have to "bid" for each player. The dictionary meaning of auction is "a public sale in which properties or items of merchandise are sold to the highest bidder". Now, are our revered players property or items of merchandise? In the olden days, when European colonialism was spreading its wings, they used to buy and sell slaves, especially native Africans in an auction, which used to be held in a public square. The winner of the auction used to then own these slaves who then had to behave as per their master's wishes. Do we want to project our players in this manner? That they are owned by the likes of Shilpa Shetty, Preity Zinta, Shah Rukh Khan, Juhi Chawla, etc.!!

Now, look at the news that describes the outcomes of the "auction". Times of India reports:

Shah Rukh Khan was not present in person but his Kolkata Knight Riders, which had been reduced to an also-ran in the last two seasons, proved to be the big spender of the day by also buying hard-hitting all-rounders Yusuf Pathan (Rs 9.66 crore) and Jacques Kallis (Rs 5.06 crore) for the fourth edition of event to be held from April 8 to May 20.

Note those words in bold. Players were "bought" like pieces of artwork or antiques, to be displayed on the field and used to earn more money!! And, there were a few players "unsold" because none were interested in "buying" them.

But there were some surprise names in the unsold list with former India and KKR captain Sourav Ganguly, West Indies batting star Chris Gayle and the legendary Brian Lara failing to find a buyer.

rediff.com reports

Gautam Gambhir was sold for the highest price with Kolkata Knight Riders signing him for a massive $2.4 million.

And many more reports from the media might have reported the IPL "auctions" in a very similar manner. We continue to devour the IPL news without giving a second's thought to the terminology used. We, who worship Sachin Tendulkar, Rahul Dravid, V. V. S. Lakshman and many other cricketers, do not feel uncomfortable about them being "bought" or remaining "unsold". 

Softer terms can be used to describe the above transactions. Even the football leagues in Europe use such terminologies. E.g., a player is not bought but is signed on by a team. Similarly, a team doesn't sell a player, but he is transferred. And a player needn't be unsold but he can remain unsigned by any of the franchisees. This helps maintain the dignity of the profession and also stresses the fact that the players are anyone's slaves but have made available their talent to a particular franchisee at their own will. The auction itself needs to be redefined. Currently, I cannot find an appropriate word to replace it, but readers would be of great help, if they can help me find one.

These are finer nuances of the language, which if implemented convey a completely different meaning of the entire process. Remember Michaelangelo said, "Trifles make perfection, but perfection is no trifle". That is how it is any language. But is there anybody listening? Are we concerned only about the sixers that will be rained in the IPL or also about whether the dignity of the cricket profession and the game is maintained?