is nariman a hindu?
there is a trend in goi to use monotheist forces to denigrate hindu
leaders
and monuments.
these are divine rocks that float. there is a saying in hindu to the
effect
that raam ji's name makes a rock float.
<usenet@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr. Jai Maharaj)> wrote in
message news:20080729ON1259g6E57Dis26jmmQ7F1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Setu project: replies to arguments of Counsel Nariman on geotechnical,
> oceanographic, environmental studies
>
> Forwarded message from S. Kalyanaraman
>
> Setu project: replies to arguments of Counsel Nariman on
> geotechnical, oceanographic, environmental studies
>
>
http://setubandha.blogspot.com/2008/07/setu-project-replies-to-arguments-of.html
>
> Geological Survey of India, the premier earthsciences
> organisation together with National Institute of
> Oceanography, Goa, the premier oceanography organisation
> should be involved in any study as was done in Tehri dam
> case by appointing an advocates' commission.
>
> It is surprising that for the Setu channel, these
> organisations were not involved as consultants for geo-
> scientific studies including oceanographic investigations
> before approving the channel project.
>
> Some arguments were made by UOI counsel Nariman on 24 and
> 25 July about geo-scientific studides related to SSCP.
> Replies to these arguments are submitted. Former Directors
> of Geological Survey of India Dr. K. Gopalakrishnan, Dr. S.
> Badrinarayanan and Dr. K Subramanian had made the following
> submissions which are also made available to the SC:
>
> 1. Geological and Geo-tectonic Setting of the Palk Bay --
> Gulf of mannar area -- Their relevance to SSCP
>
> 2. Rama Sethu -- Geographical, Geological, Historical and
> Geo-Archaeological Perspectives (These two re****ts are
> submitted personally to CEP)
>
> 3. Ocean Current Movements in Palk Bay -- Gulf of Mannar
> region and their significance in relation to SSCP
>
> 4. Comments on the re****t of the committee of Eminent
> Persons on SSCP(Presented as a separate volume entitled
> "Geological Aspects of SSCP".
>
> References to these do***ents are made in the following
> point-wise comments made by Dr. K. S. Gopalakrishnan
>
> Mr. Nariman has stated that 'a geological survwey in the
> area had not thrown up any evidence to suggest that Rama
> Sethu was a man-made structure'
>
> Mr.Nariman has cleverly not mentioned what geological
> evidences were searched for to suggest a man-made structure
> at Rama Sethu, which were not found.
>
> On the other hand our re****t under reference-2 above
> clearly brings about evidences for the occurrence of a
> Boulder-Conglomerate bed having different rock types such
> as calcareous sandstone, fossiliferous limestone and
> corals, between a loose beach sand horizon at the top and
> another loose sand formation below the boulder bed. Such
> boulder beds are nowhere re****ted along the southern Tamil
> Nadu coast. Also this boulder bed occurs perpendicular to
> the coast. This type of boulder beds can not be formed by
> any marine sedimentary process. It is significant that
> Valmiki Ramayana describes that the Rama Sethi was built by
> using huge rocks and trees available on the coast. As such
> occurrence of this type of boulder bed at Rama Sethu proves
> it to be not by normal sedimentary process by only by a
> human hand.
>
> Elsewhere Mr. Nariman is re****ted to have said that "we
> believe that the bridge is not man-made structure but a
> super-man made structure".
>
> Does this mean that the Govt. accepts that there is a
> bridge structure on Rama Sethu that is not by sedimentary
> process and that it was built by the super-man Rama who is
> an avatar of God?
>
> Nariman has also stated that the project was not rushed
> through and that each and every aspect was considered in
> depth at various levels by expert committees and only after
> all requirements were required (acquired?), was clearance
> given.
>
> In the re****ts submitted to CEP, we had clearly brought out
> that the three geo-scientific aspects, viz., Geotechnical
> Evaluation Studies, Geo-Environmental *****sment Studies
> and the Nature of Current Movements in the entire Project
> area and its environs, have not been studied at all in
> depth, covering all aspects in each of the above three
> spheres, by any competent agencies.
>
> The geo-technical studies restricted only to the canals and
> channels of SSCP were done by NIOT, but not for the whole
> project area. Also these studies did not take into account
> the im****tant aspects such as recent fault movements,
> earth- tremors, higher heat flow in the area and possible
> volcanic activity etc. Neo-tectonic activities (recent
> earth movements) associated with faulting during 1948-49
> had caused submergence and subsidence of southern parts of
> Dhanushkodi town ****p was brought out by GSI's studies.
> Recurrence of such activities will affect the Rama Sethu
> canal's stability. Similarly, the neo-tectonic activity
> with subsidence in the Palk Bay along the extensions of
> the Vellar river fault as brought out by GSI may affect the
> ENE trending section of channel/canal. This aspect has also
> not been studied by NIOT or any other agency. These aspects
> have been cited in our re****t under Reference-1 above.
>
> No detailed Geo-environmental studies for the entire
> project area and its environ was carried out by NEERI.
> Whatever geo-scientific studies carried out by NEERI, and
> that too only in Palk Bay relates to rates of
> sedimentation. Actually, NEERI does not possess the
> expertise to carry out any GEO-Environmental Studies. Only
> GSI has got the core competence for study of six geological
> parameters, viz., geology, geo-morphology, soil, land-use,
> surface water and ground water, out of the specified 12
> parameters earmarked by the Dept. of Environment, Govt. of
> India, for the purpose of environmental clearance (See p.44
> of GSI pamphlet entitled 'Annals and Antiquity of GSI,2002,
> included in Refence-4 above).
>
> No studies on current movements for the project area as a
> whole were carried out by competent agency like, NIO, NIOT
> or the Marine Wing of GSI. Our paper under reference 3,
> derived from Google Earth photos, clearly brings out the
> fact that in the western sector, the currents from Palk Bay
> converge on the Pamban channel (about 2.5 km wide and about
> 5m deep) and move with force to Gulf of Mannar side, where
> they are deflected by the coralline islands to west and SW
> towards the southern Tamil Nadu coast. On the other hand,
> in the central sector, the currents stopped somewhat by the
> Rama Sethu , overflow into Gulf of Mannar and produce a
> swirling structure with sediments. If the proposed narrow
> and deep SSCP canal (300m x 12m) across Rama Sethu is cut,
> it will bring in erosion and destabilization of the canal
> itself, besides further heavy devastations in the Gulf
> destroying the marine life in those parts. Also, due this
> activity, the orientation and force of current movements
> will change drastically in the gulf, which will prevent
> deposition of future heavy mineral placer sands with
> monazite, rutile, ilmenite etc along our southern coast.
> They may even destroy and remove the already existing
> deposits of such minerals from our shores to the deep ocean
> back.
>
> Mr.Nariman is re****ted to have said that 'each and every
> aspect was considered in depth at various levels by expert
> committees and only after all requirements were acquired,
> was clearance given'.
>
> It is not known whether any geo-scientific and marine
> experts were included in these expert committees.
>
> It can be seen that the Final Detailed Project Re****t by
> L&T Ramboll Consulting Engineers have submitted their
> re****t in Feb. 2005 itself, before the receipt of or data
> from such im****tant re****ts such as (i) Marine geophysical
> surveys carried out for the Proposed Sethusamudram
> Navigational Channel by NIOT (Feb.2005), (ii) Geological
> and Geo-technical *****sment of the sub-sea strata for the
> proposed Sethusamudram Navigational Channel by NIOT (April,
> 2005), and (iii) Final re****t on conducting Bore-hole
> investigations along SSC alignment at Adam's Bridge by
> Fugro Geo-tech Ltd, April, 2007).
>
> Environmental clearance letter from MoE&F has been issued
> on 31.03. 2005 itself without the Geotechnical re****t from
> NIOT (April, 2005) and the re****t form Fugro Geo-tech Ltd
> (April, 2007).
>
> Similarly many other im****tant re****ts such as (a) Re****t
> on Geological Studies and Sub-surface strata conditions at
> the site of Sethusamudram canal in the vicinity of
> Rameswaram and Dhanushkodi by Dr. S.P.Subramaiam, Dept. of
> Ocean Engineering, IIT, Madras (no date), (b) A Re****t on
> the feasibility of underwater drilling and controlled
> blasting of SSCP by Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad (No
> date), and (c) Study of Rock Mechanics Properties of
> sandstone samples collected from SSCP (Name of author or
> organization not mentioned; letter dated 30 August, 2007)
> are received very recently after the commissioning of the
> project.
>
> (The details regarding the dates of receipt s of various
> re****ts stated above are taken from the re****t of ECP.
> Please also see the reference -4 above; part-1, letter to
> Dr. Kalyana Raman).
>
> The major doubts and apprehensions raised by Dr. Tad. S.
> Murthy, the international "Tsunami Expert" regarding the
> orientations of SSCP canals vis-à-vis the future tsunami
> waves, which were forwarded by PM's Office to SSCP
> authorities were brushes aside by the Tuticorin ****t Trust
> that has no expertise in the field of tsunamis without any
> technical explanations.
>
> Contrary to the submission of Mr. Nariman to the court, it
> can be seen from the above facts that the project was
> rushed through without even waiting for many of the re****ts
> commissioned by SSCP authorities themselves. No renowned
> geo-scientific, oceanographic or tsunami experts were
> included in the various expert committees. Many scientific
> aspects were not considered and tackled by SSCP authorities
> before starting the project.
>
> The contention of Mr. Nariman that the proposal of
> Alignment No.6 was the result of a comprehensive and
> careful examination of all relevant considerations, backed
> by sound environmental, navigational, engineering and
> trans-boundary considerations etc., does not also stand to
> reason, without proper geo-technical, geo-environmental and
> ocean current studies sup****ted by mathematical, scle and
> computer generated modeling studies by competent agencies.
>
> End of forwarded message from S. Kalyanaraman
>
> Jai Maharaj
> http://tinyurl.com/24fq83
> http://www.mantra.com/jai
> http://www.mantra.com/jyotish
> Om Shanti
>
> Hindu Holocaust Museum
> http://www.mantra.com/holocaust
>
> Hindu life, principles, spirituality and philosophy
> http://www.hindu.org
> http://www.hindunet.org
>
> The truth about Islam and Muslims
> http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate
>
> DISCLAIMER AND CONDITIONS
>
> o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the
> educational
> purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may
> not
> have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of
the
> poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption
for
> fair use of copyrighted works.
> o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
> considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name,
> current
> e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
> o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others
> are
> not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the
> article.
>
> FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use
of
> which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
> owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
> understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
> democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is
believed
> that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
> provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with
> Title
> 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
> profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
> included
> information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes
by
> subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more
> information
> go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
> If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes
of
> your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
> copyright owner.
|
