The Sound and the Fury, Why Thrissur Pooram’s Fireworks Are a Public Health Crisis and How Cold Spark Technology Offers a Way Out
The Thrissur Pooram is not merely a festival; it is a spectacle. For centuries, this grand gathering of deities, caparisoned elephants, and percussive ensembles has been hailed as the mother of all temple festivals in Kerala. But in recent years, a different kind of attention has fallen upon its most anticipated segment—the fireworks display. What was once a celebration of light and sound has become a public health concern, a threat to animal welfare, and a recurring tragedy waiting to happen.
In 2025, hundreds gathered to witness the fireworks. A heavily caparisoned and disoriented elephant named Uttoly Raman suddenly ran amok, leaving 42 people injured. The previous day, another parading elephant, Chirakkara Sreeraman, had attacked its mahout. These were not isolated incidents of rogue behaviour. They were predictable responses to an environment that is fundamentally hostile to animal senses. As Manjari Jain, Associate Professor in the Department of Biological Sciences at IISER Mohali, explains, “Elephants, like other animals, get disoriented not just by decibel levels, but also by the structure and frequency of noise.”
The data from the 2025 festival is staggering. In response to a Right to Information (RTI) request filed by The Hindu, the Kerala State Pollution Control Board revealed that noise levels during the festival peaked at 122.4 decibels in one area. To put that number in perspective, that is just under the Central Pollution Control Board’s legal cap of 125 decibels measured from four metres away. It is also more than double the permissible ambient noise for residential areas (45–55 decibels) and nearly three times the limit for “silence zones” such as hospitals (40–50 decibels). The festival is, in effect, operating at the extreme edge of what the law permits—and in practice, far beyond what is safe for humans, animals, and vulnerable patients.
This article examines the public health and animal welfare risks of traditional fireworks, explores the science behind noiseless alternatives like cold spark technology, analyses the barriers to adoption, and proposes a transition strategy for Thrissur Pooram and festivals across India.
Part I: The Decibel Danger – What the Numbers Mean
Noise is not merely an annoyance; it is a physiological stressor. The World Health Organization (WHO) identifies noise pollution as the third most hazardous environmental threat to human health, after air and water pollution. Chronic exposure to high decibel levels leads to hearing loss, cardiovascular disease (hypertension, heart attacks), sleep disturbances, cognitive impairment in children, and mental health disorders such as anxiety and depression.
Acute exposure—the kind that happens during a fireworks display—can cause immediate harm. A single burst at 120 decibels can cause permanent hearing damage if experienced without protection. For children, whose ear canals are narrower and whose auditory systems are still developing, the risk is even greater. For infants, particularly those in neonatal intensive care units (NICUs), the harm can be neurological.
Eminent social scientist Rajan Gurukkal has raised urgent concerns about the proximity of Thrissur’s fireworks to hospitals, especially those with NICUs. “The way the festival is conducted in Thrissur violates ICU norms,” he told The Hindu. “Many facilities do not have soundproof windows, and the district hospital is minutes away from the fireworks.” The impact on infant brain development from sudden, loud noises is well documented: it can disrupt sleep cycles, increase cortisol (stress hormone) levels, and interfere with the neural wiring that occurs during critical developmental windows.
The National Ambient Noise Monitoring Network recommends 40–50 decibels in silence zones. The Thrissur Pooram fireworks routinely exceed 120 decibels. That is not a minor infraction; it is a factor of 10,000 times more intense in terms of sound energy (because decibels are logarithmic). A hospital located minutes away from such a display is, in effect, hosting patients inside a war zone.
Part II: The Animal Toll – Elephants, Noise, and Disorientation
The tragedy of Uttoly Raman and Chirakkara Sreeraman is not an anomaly; it is a symptom. Elephants are among the most noise-sensitive land mammals. Their hearing range extends into frequencies that humans cannot perceive, and they use infrasound (low-frequency sound) to communicate over distances of several kilometres. The sudden, unpredictable, high-frequency bursts of fireworks create a sensory assault that elephants cannot process.
Disorientation is the first response. The animal does not understand where the sound is coming from, whether it is a threat, or how to escape. Panic follows. A panicked elephant, weighing several tonnes, is a lethal projectile. It will trample, charge, and destroy anything in its path—not out of malice, but out of sheer terror.
The problem is not just the peak decibel level but the “structure and frequency of noise,” as Prof. Jain notes. Fireworks produce impulsive noise—sharp, sudden bursts with rapid rise times—which is far more startling than continuous noise of the same average level. The unpredictable pattern of a fireworks display (crescendos, silences, unexpected bangs) is designed to thrill human spectators. For an elephant, it is a nightmare.
Beyond elephants, domestic animals (dogs, cats, cattle) and wildlife suffer similarly. Every major festival season in India sees a surge in lost pets, stray animals injured in panicked flight, and wildlife displaced from their habitats. The suffering is invisible, unmeasured, and largely ignored.
Part III: The Mundathikode Tragedy – The Human Cost of Manufacturing
On April 21, 2026, just days before this article was written, a devastating fire broke out at a fireworks manufacturing unit in Mundathikode, near Thrissur. Thirteen people were killed and 40 others injured in the blaze. The unit was producing the very fireworks that would have lit up the next Pooram sky.
This tragedy underscores a grim reality: the cost of traditional fireworks is not limited to noise and pollution. It is paid in the blood of workers who toil in unregulated, hazardous conditions. Fireworks manufacturing involves the handling of explosive chemicals—potassium nitrate, sulphur, charcoal, aluminium powder, and various oxidisers—in environments that often lack basic safety measures. A single spark, a moment of carelessness, or a chemical incompatibility can trigger a conflagration.
The Mundathikode fire is not an isolated incident. Every year, across India, fireworks factories and storage units catch fire, killing workers and destroying communities. The regulatory framework is weak; enforcement is weaker. And the demand that drives this dangerous industry comes, in large part, from festivals like Thrissur Pooram.
It was in the aftermath of this tragedy that Prof. Gurukkal made his most forceful statement: “It is time to go noiseless. We do not need to reinvent the wheel; cold spark technology is available, but not yet scaled up.”
Part IV: The Science of Silence – How Cold Spark Technology Works
What if you could have the visual magnificence of fireworks—the golden sparks, the cascading fountains, the glittering circles—without the earth-shaking bang, without the choking smoke, without the risk of burns, and without the terrorized animals?
That technology already exists. It is called cold spark technology.
Samrat Ghosh, Assistant Professor at the Frugal Innovation Lab for Societal Benefit, Department of Chemical Sciences, explains the mechanism. Unlike traditional fireworks, which rely on a chemical explosion to propel burning particles into the air, cold spark technology uses a controlled combustion reaction of very fine granulated metal alloy powders, primarily titanium and zirconium.
The device, often called a “cold sparkular,” is a gun-like apparatus equipped with a heater and a fan. Here is the step-by-step process:
-
The heater warms the fine alloy powder to increase its activation energy—making it more reactive but not yet burning.
-
The fan blows the fine granulated metal powder out of the barrel.
-
As the fine powder ejects into the air, it reacts with oxygen in a rapid exothermic (heat-releasing) reaction.
-
This reaction emits light with a sparkle-like effect visually identical to traditional fireworks—but with no explosive noise.
The temperature of the sparks is dramatically lower than traditional fireworks. While traditional sparklers emit temperatures of around 1,200°C (hot enough to melt many metals and cause third-degree burns instantly), cold sparklers and “cold anars” operate at 60–100°C. That is cooler than a cup of hot coffee. You could theoretically hold one in your hand without injury, though safety precautions are still necessary.
This low operating temperature also eliminates the risk of fire. Traditional fireworks frequently cause roof fires, vegetation fires, and burns to spectators. Cold spark technology is inherently safer.
Part V: The Visual Potential – Beyond Simple Substitution
Prof. Gurukkal argues that cold spark technology is not merely a substitute; it is potentially superior in visual effect. Contemporary stage technologies already employ cold spark systems routinely in television shows, concerts, and theatrical productions. These systems generate bright, upward jets of sparkling light without explosive combustion, without heavy smoke, and without high-debris fallout—while delivering the same, if not superior, visual effect.
“The way forward,” Prof. Gurukkal explains, “is to deploy arrays of dozens or hundreds of spark units across open grounds, arranged linearly, radially, or in clusters, with sequential triggering of waves, expanding bursts, and cascading effects.” These could even be mounted on temporary towers to extend the visual field, “creating the illusion of vertical expansion into the night sky.”
In other words, cold spark technology enables a level of choreography and precision that is impossible with traditional fireworks. A computer can control each unit individually, creating patterns, waves, and synchronised bursts that respond to music or rhythm. Traditional fireworks are, by comparison, blunt instruments: once lit, they cannot be stopped or adjusted. Cold spark systems can be turned on and off instantaneously, allowing for dynamic, interactive displays.
Part VI: The Barriers – Cost, Scale, and Indigenous Manufacturing
If cold spark technology is so superior, why is it not already ubiquitous? The answer is threefold: cost, scale, and manufacturing geography.
Currently, these pyrotechnics remain expensive. A single “cold anar” can cost around ₹400, compared to a traditional firecracker that might cost ₹10–50. For a large-scale display like Thrissur Pooram, which uses thousands of individual units, the cost differential is prohibitive for most organisers.
Moreover, the technology is largely manufactured in China. India does not yet have a domestic industry capable of producing the fine metal alloy powders (titanium, zirconium) at scale and at competitive prices. This creates a dependency that is both economically and strategically problematic.
However, as Dr. Ghosh notes, “We have plenty of scope in India as the technology is well known and one can indigenously make these nano-powders.” The raw materials are available. The chemical engineering expertise exists. What is missing is investment, policy support, and a commitment to scaling up production. If the government were to provide subsidies or tax incentives for domestic manufacturing of cold spark components, the price could fall dramatically within a few years.
The second barrier is scale. Thrissur Pooram is not a small stage show; it is a massive open-ground festival with hundreds of thousands of spectators. Deploying arrays of hundreds of cold spark units across such a large area requires planning, infrastructure (power supply, control systems), and trained personnel. This is not an insurmountable challenge, but it requires “professionalism and management,” as Prof. Gurukkal emphasises. It requires moving away from the ad hoc, often unsafe, practices of traditional fireworks and towards a professionally managed, technologically sophisticated approach.
Part VII: The Way Forward – A Transition Strategy for Thrissur Pooram
Prof. Gurukkal has proposed an incremental transition strategy for Kerala, starting with the Thrissur Pooram itself. “It is the responsibility of the Thrissur Corporation to substitute the existing method,” he states.
What would such a transition look like?
Phase 1 (2027): Pilot Integration. A small segment of the Pooram fireworks—say, 10–15% of the display—is replaced with cold spark technology. This allows organisers to gain experience, train personnel, and demonstrate to the public that noiseless fireworks can be spectacular. Noise levels are measured before, during, and after. Public feedback is collected.
Phase 2 (2028–29): Scale-Up. The cold spark share increases to 50%. Traditional fireworks are restricted to specific, pre-announced segments, allowing hospitals to prepare (temporary soundproofing, patient relocation within facilities) and allowing elephants to be moved to quieter zones during displays.
Phase 3 (2030 onwards): Complete Transition. The Pooram becomes entirely noiseless. The visual spectacle is enhanced through choreographed arrays, towers, and computer-controlled sequences. Kerala becomes a model for the rest of India. Delhi, which celebrated its loudest Diwali in three years in 2025, follows suit.
This is not a ban on celebration. It is an upgrade. It is the difference between a kerosene lamp and an LED light—same function, same beauty, but infinitely safer, cleaner, and more controllable.
Part VIII: Beyond Thrissur – A National Imperative
The lessons of Thrissur Pooram apply far beyond Kerala. Every major Indian festival—Diwali, Durga Puja, Ganesh Chaturthi, Baisakhi, and others—involves fireworks. Each year, hospitals report spikes in burn injuries, respiratory distress, and noise-induced hearing damage. Each year, animals suffer. Each year, workers die in manufacturing accidents.
The Union government has already taken some steps. The Central Pollution Control Board’s “Noise Standards for Firecrackers” cap fireworks at 125 decibels. The Supreme Court has banned certain types of polluting firecrackers and restricted bursting hours. But enforcement remains weak, and the fundamental technology remains unchanged.
Cold spark technology offers a genuine alternative—not a reduction in harm, but an elimination of most harms. No noise. No smoke. No burn risk. No explosive manufacturing hazards. No animal terror. And a superior visual experience.
The barriers—cost and scale—are real but solvable. The government could:
-
Provide subsidies for domestic manufacturing of cold spark components.
-
Offer tax incentives to event organisers who switch to noiseless displays.
-
Fund research and development at institutions like the Frugal Innovation Lab to improve and lower the cost of the technology.
-
Launch a public awareness campaign to build demand for noiseless festivals.
Conclusion: The Future Is Silent and Bright
The death of 13 workers in Mundathikode, the 42 injured by a panicked elephant, the infants in NICUs subjected to 122-decibel blasts—these are not acceptable prices for celebration. Tradition is not a suicide pact. Culture evolves. The Thrissur Pooram of 2026 does not have to be identical to the Pooram of 1926. It can be better.
Prof. Gurukkal has laid down a challenge: start with Thrissur, the greatest among occasions. Test cold spark technology at scale. Prove that noiseless fireworks can be as magnificent, more beautiful, and infinitely more humane. Then spread the model across Kerala, across India, and across the world.
The technology is ready. The need is urgent. The only missing ingredient is will. It is time to go noiseless.
5 Questions & Answers Based on the Article
Q1. What were the noise levels recorded during the 2025 Thrissur Pooram fireworks, and how do they compare to legal limits and safe levels for hospitals?
A1. The Kerala State Pollution Control Board recorded peak noise levels of 122.4 decibels during the 2025 Thrissur Pooram fireworks. This is just under the Central Pollution Control Board’s legal cap of 125 decibels measured from four metres away. However, it is far above the National Ambient Noise Monitoring Network’s recommended levels of 45–55 decibels for residential areas and 40–50 decibels for silence zones (hospitals, educational institutions) . A hospital near the fireworks experiences noise more than double the safe limit for silence zones, posing serious risks to patients, especially infants in NICUs.
Q2. What happened at Mundathikode on April 21, 2026, and why is it connected to the debate over fireworks?
A2. On April 21, 2026, a massive fire broke out at a fireworks manufacturing unit in Mundathikode, near Thrissur, killing 13 people and injuring 40 others. This tragedy highlights the hidden human cost of traditional fireworks: workers in largely unregulated, hazardous conditions face constant risk of explosions and fires. The incident prompted eminent social scientist Rajan Gurukkal to declare that “it is time to go noiseless,” arguing that cold spark technology, which does not rely on explosive chemicals, could eliminate both the noise pollution and the manufacturing dangers.
Q3. How does cold spark technology work, and why is it considered safer than traditional fireworks?
A3. Cold spark technology uses a device (a “cold sparkular”) with a heater and a fan. The heater warms fine granulated metal alloy powders (titanium and zirconium) to increase their activation energy. The fan then blows the powder out of a barrel, where it reacts with oxygen in a rapid exothermic reaction that produces sparkling light—with no explosive noise. It is safer because: (1) operating temperatures are 60–100°C compared to 1,200°C for traditional sparklers, preventing burn injuries; (2) there is no explosion, so no blast pressure wave; (3) no smoke or heavy debris; and (4) manufacturing does not require handling highly explosive chemicals.
Q4. What are the main barriers to widespread adoption of cold spark technology in festivals like Thrissur Pooram?
A4. The three main barriers are: (1) Cost – a single “cold anar” costs around ₹400, compared to ₹10–50 for a traditional firecracker, making large-scale displays prohibitively expensive. (2) Scale – deploying hundreds of cold spark units across a large open ground requires infrastructure (power, control systems), planning, and trained personnel, which is a shift from the ad hoc methods used for traditional fireworks. (3) Manufacturing geography – the technology is largely manufactured in China; India lacks domestic capacity to produce the fine metal alloy powders at scale and competitive prices, though the technical know-how exists.
Q5. What incremental transition strategy has been proposed for Thrissur Pooram to move towards noiseless fireworks?
A5. The proposed three-phase transition strategy is: Phase 1 (2027) – replace 10–15% of the fireworks display with cold spark technology as a pilot, gaining experience and demonstrating feasibility. Phase 2 (2028–29) – scale up to 50% cold spark, with traditional fireworks restricted to specific pre-announced segments, allowing hospitals to prepare (soundproofing, patient relocation) and elephants to be moved to quieter zones. Phase 3 (2030 onwards) – complete transition to entirely noiseless fireworks, using choreographed arrays, towers, and computer-controlled sequences to enhance the visual spectacle. The responsibility for initiating this transition lies with the Thrissur Corporation.
