Resolved: On balance, the benefits of nuclear power outweigh the risks.

O1: The resolution reserves the power of fiat to the negative – meaning that if neither side is able to prove their side, the resolution must be negated by default. For the resolution to be affirmed, the affirmative must prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that the benefits of nuclear power outweigh the risks.D1: Nuclear Power = use of sustained nuclear fission to generate heat and do useful work [1]D2: Risk = possibility of loss or injury [2]C1: High Construction CostsAccording to Dr. Martin Sevior of the University of Melbourne, the cost of the newest third generation power plants are well over “$3500 per KW [kilowatt].” In fact, the Westinghouse AP1000 – a power plant with four reactors, cost well over $8 billion dollars, reports the University of Melbourne's School of Physics. Even ignoring exorbitant start up prices, historical precedent points to massive cost overruns – common issues, such as design flaws and two hurdle licensing, that result in dire financial repercussions. Pundit Ivona Okuniewicz brings up the example of Long Island's Shoreham Site – a nuclear power plant that cost over $5 billion, even though it was never allowed to operate due to two hurdle licensing. Shoreham brings to light a great risk – even with billions of dollars spent towards nuclear energy, there is no guarantee that such funding will actually be utilized. At the point where this is true, needless capital deprivation elucidates negative impacts on the American economy. C2: Health Risks of Radioactive MiningThe radioactive material, such as uranium, that is needed to fuel nuclear power plants emit radon gas. A study done by the British Columbia Medical Association reveals that “Radon radiation is a health hazard to workers in advanced stages of exploration, such as in tunnels and shafts, where very high levels of working levels have been recorded in low grade deposits (1600 times normal levels).” The study furthers, “Despite AECB claims to the contrary, the risks from radiation in uranium mining far exceed those of a 'safe' industry.” There are multiple negative impacts that result from radon radiation. Reinhard Zaire of Germany's University Medical Centre BF explains that excessive exposure to radon radiation may lead to serious diseases, including apoptosis, cancer induction, genetic damage to future generations, childhood cancers, and dose-response tissue reactions. Empirically, one can look to victims of radioactive poisoning in the aftermath of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings in order to survey the horrifying effects of radon radiation. At the point where the mining of radioactive material proliferates diseases such as cancer, the humanitarian impacts of this point are clear. C3: Various Harms of Nuclear Waste"It's [Nuclear Waste] probably the single greatest security vulnerability in the United States," says Kevin Kamps, radioactive waste specialist at Beyond Nuclear, a watchdog group. According to CNN, “In the United States, 63,000 tons of nuclear waste, the sum total of all the waste generated by decades of nuclear power, sits right where it was created -- at the power plants themselves.” There are several risks involving nuclear waste. Harm 1: MeltdownsCNN explains, “Power plants are very close to major population centers -- Washington, Boston, New York City, Philadelphia and Chicago have reactors within the 50-mile fallout zone.” According to industry critics, if such waste were to catch on fire, the consequences would result in “an area the size of half of New Jersey permanently uninhabitable.” Historical precedent points to examples such as Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and even Fukushima Daiichi – incidents that demonstrate the dire consequences of radioactive material. Specifically, if one looks to the Chernobyl disaster – a catastrophic event which, according to pundits Marshall Brain and Robert Lamb, resulted in “the evacuation of at least 30,000 people, and eventually caused thousands to die from cancer and other illnesses.” The cause of Chernobyl was poor design and improper operation, and when the two converged – the Ukrainian reactor exploded, setting on fire 50 tons of nuclear waste. Similarly, an untimely tsunami destroyed Fukushima Daiichi's backup generators, resulting in a rise of temperature until a hydrogen explosion destroyed panels containing nuclear waste. Similarly, the Three Mile Incident involved failures in a power plant's PORV system, allowing large amounts of nuclear reactant cooling to escape. Now, the natural response would be: wouldn't the pragmatic choice be to simply store away the nuclear waste in a safe place – to prevent the worst of a plant meltdown? There are fundamental issues with this concept. The main problem revolves around storage issues. According to CNN, “industry critics want lawmakers to mandate that most of the waste, known as spent fuel, be stored away from the main reactors in certified steel and concrete casks, then have those casks placed in fortified buildings or earthen bunkers. But it's fallen on deaf ears in Congress.” Pundit Steve Hargreaves expands on this point, “Most of the waste sits close to the reactors in pools that resemble swimming pools. A smaller amount is kept outside in casks that critics say are poorly guarded. The reason so much waste is being stored at the nuclear power plants themselves is that the government hasn't figured out what to do with it permanently. Storing the waste in this manner was supposed to be a temporary measure until it was permanently buried deep inside Nevada's Yucca mountain. But thanks to a mix of geology and politics, that site was recently deemed unsuitable. The hunt is on for a new long term repository, but finding and building one will likely take decades.” At the point where tons of nuclear waste are found in large pools near reactors, it is very possible a natural disaster, human malfunction, or simple mechanical error could cause another meltdown. From looking at events such as Chernobyl, the negative impacts of future meltdowns is clear. The deaths of thousands of people from the explosion and through radiation poisoning, and other associated diseases, indicate a definitive and severe risk for the use of nuclear power. Harm 2: Facilitation of Terrorism:According to CNN, “It's also possible for terrorists to specifically target the pools. Reactors like the ones in Japan, of which there are 23 in the United States, are particularly vulnerable. The pools in that design are located several stories above ground, making them easy targets for shoulder-fired missiles or airplane attacks. Critics say the concrete and steel around the pools are designed to prevent radiation leaks, not to stop a missile.” A CRS report for Congress furthers, “he Nuclear Regulatory Commission has strengthened its regulations on nuclear reactor security, but critics contend that implementation by the industry has been too slow and that further measures are needed. Several bills to increase nuclear reactor security measures and requirements were introduced after the 9/11 attacks, along with provisions in an omnibus energy bill considered in the 108th Congress (H.R. 6). None of those measures were enacted.” From these two sources, a couple of facts can be drawn. First, a clear incentive for terrorists to attack nuclear power plants exists. The damage would be extremely detrimental to the United States – a terrorist goal made clear by events such as 9/11. Second, despite security measures within facilities, plants are not prepared to deal with air or missile attacks. Third, future security measures to prevent the air/missile vulnerable plants have been put on hold – or at the least, delayed. At the point where terrorists have an incentive and the means to attack a plant, one must look at potential negative impacts. In this case, a terrorist attack could result in two things: 1. an explosion similar to that of a meltdown 2. nuclear proliferation – risks involved with nuclear power.