[meteorite-list] radioactive meteorites-- India Nuke Corp and Dr. Goyal under fire

From: drtanuki <drtanuki_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 20:08:21 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <873646.63433.qm_at_web53201.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

Dear list,
  As a result of a member of our list and others we
will soon get the "official" decision from the Indian
courts about the statements made by Dr. Goyal that
"meteorites are radioactive and that a nuclear power
plant could be destroyed by a meteorite impact".

  From the Indian news:

CIC asks NPCIL to explain delay
Tripti Nath
Tribune News Service

New Delhi, March 21
The Central Information Commission (CIC) has directed
central public information officers (CPIOs) of Nuclear
Power Corporation of India Ltd. (NPCIL) and the
Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) to explain why they
should not be penalised for delay in giving
information sought under the Right to Information Act.


It was on September 12, 2006 that Ahmedabad-based
Manoj Pai wrote to the CPIO in the Prime Minister?fs
Office (PMO) seeking the PM?fs opinion on hazards from
radioactive meteorites with specific reference to the
meteorite that fell in Gujarat on July 31 the same
year. Pai also wanted to know the precautions taken by
the PMO and the name of the institutes in the country
that can detect such radioactive objects and carry out
research done on the subject.

Curiously, Pai got a reply from the PMO a day before
his application was submitted. The letter sent by
Kamal Dayani, director and CPIO, PMO, informed him
that his application had been sent to the secretary,
Department of Science and Technology. The CPIO in the
Department of Science and Technology forwarded it to
the CPIO in the Department of Atomic Energy on October
25, 2006. When Pai did not receive any response, he
moved his first appeal before the Appellate Authority,
DAE to the Appellate Authority, NPCIL on January 17.
When he did not get any response from any of the
agencies to which his application was forwarded, Pai
moved his second appeal before CIC.

In this appeal, he said the CPIO, PMO be advised to
consider his appeal under the ?eLife and liberty?f
clause if a dangerous and fatal disease as cancer is
caused by meteorites.

The appeal was scheduled for hearing by
videoconferencing on March 10. The CPIO in the Prime
Minister?fs Office was told that his presence was not
required during the hearing, as he had compiled with
the requirements of the Act.

Chief information commissioner Wajahat Habibullah
directed both the CPIOs to appear personally before
the commission on March 27 through videoconferencing
and show cause as to why a penalty from the date the
information was due (October 12, 2006) to the date
when it was actually supplied, not be imposed on
either one or both of them under the provisions of the
RTI Act.

The CIC decision notice dated March 10, however, gave
the CPIOs the option of submitting their written
submissions on or before March 20. In doing so, the
commission treated the application as a complaint
petition Under Section 18 (1) (c) of the RTI Act to
ensure that the CPIOs provide the information to the
applicant within 10 working days from the date of
receipt of its decision as spelt out in the definition
of right to information.

  Thank you to DRS. Manoj Pai and others from the list
that contributed to this inquiry.
Dirk Ross...Tokyo
Received on Fri 28 Mar 2008 11:08:21 PM PDT