Irrespective of the circumstances, directly or indirectly in their control, the suppliers and operators of nuclear plants could not shun the responsibilities for any destruction caused to human life, property or environment in the course of their operation in India.
Risk mitigating is always preferred by any intelligent investors; however, it comes with a premium: but here the scenario is altogether different. The risk-reward ratio seems acutely tilted. Almost all of the US nuclear operator and suppliers group are stanch advocates of this bill; while other NSG [Nuclear Suppliers Group] members (mainly Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, USSR, UK) are watching the development, with crossed figures, expecting a favorable outcome.
The history of nuclear mis-happenings can be traced back since the invention of nuclear technology. With the growing concern for environment and better life conditions, the public pressure has compelled the companies and government of the advance countries to spend huge amount of money, time and resources in inventing safer and environment friendly technologies to replace the obsolete one.
In order to get rid of the obsolete technologies with outdated equipment and apparatus, the developed countries are notorious to export it to the poor nations, just like the ‘stock clearance sale.’ The receiver countries mainly comprise of nations where human development index is low (as India). Due to apathy, ignorance, lack of awareness and absence of public participation in policy-making these deals are hardly come into the limelight, until media or any NGO cry foul. The outdated technology is one of the biggest causes of nuclear accidents.
The main reason for such export, as quoted by the rich nations, is that developing countries could not afford the price of the latest know-how. Whereas, the developed countries artificially keep the price of the specific technology so high, that it becomes commercially nonviable in the third world nations.
All inventions or innovations cost a lot of time and money and involve a great risk of failure, so the inventor should have a right to decide the price for his innovative end product as an incentive to encourage entrepreneurship. I deeply abide by this notion. My point is: You want to maximize the profits and assets, but want a cap on the liabilities? Can you practice such economics in advance countries like the US or in Europe?
In the US, with the population density of 32.08 people per square km., the liability is Rs. 46,000 crore ($10 billion); in India, with the population density of 358.485 people per square km., NSG wants a cap of just Rs. 500 crore, (the rest is borne by Indian Government, through taxpayers’ money.) By this calculation the cost of India life or one square kilometer of land is Rs. 1.4; however, the cost of American’s life or one square kilometer of US land is Rs.1437.5. For Indian government, a US citizen is 1030.5 times more valuable than the life of an Indian citizen.
Risk mitigating is always preferred by any intelligent investors; however, it comes with a premium: but here the scenario is altogether different. The risk-reward ratio seems acutely tilted. Almost all of the US nuclear operator and suppliers group are stanch advocates of this bill; while other NSG [Nuclear Suppliers Group] members (mainly Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, USSR, UK) are watching the development, with crossed figures, expecting a favorable outcome.
The history of nuclear mis-happenings can be traced back since the invention of nuclear technology. With the growing concern for environment and better life conditions, the public pressure has compelled the companies and government of the advance countries to spend huge amount of money, time and resources in inventing safer and environment friendly technologies to replace the obsolete one.
In order to get rid of the obsolete technologies with outdated equipment and apparatus, the developed countries are notorious to export it to the poor nations, just like the ‘stock clearance sale.’ The receiver countries mainly comprise of nations where human development index is low (as India). Due to apathy, ignorance, lack of awareness and absence of public participation in policy-making these deals are hardly come into the limelight, until media or any NGO cry foul. The outdated technology is one of the biggest causes of nuclear accidents.
The main reason for such export, as quoted by the rich nations, is that developing countries could not afford the price of the latest know-how. Whereas, the developed countries artificially keep the price of the specific technology so high, that it becomes commercially nonviable in the third world nations.
All inventions or innovations cost a lot of time and money and involve a great risk of failure, so the inventor should have a right to decide the price for his innovative end product as an incentive to encourage entrepreneurship. I deeply abide by this notion. My point is: You want to maximize the profits and assets, but want a cap on the liabilities? Can you practice such economics in advance countries like the US or in Europe?
In the US, with the population density of 32.08 people per square km., the liability is Rs. 46,000 crore ($10 billion); in India, with the population density of 358.485 people per square km., NSG wants a cap of just Rs. 500 crore, (the rest is borne by Indian Government, through taxpayers’ money.) By this calculation the cost of India life or one square kilometer of land is Rs. 1.4; however, the cost of American’s life or one square kilometer of US land is Rs.1437.5. For Indian government, a US citizen is 1030.5 times more valuable than the life of an Indian citizen.
No comments:
Post a Comment