Nuclear Energy Is Beneficial to Society

I would like to begin my final round by congratulating Pro on a lively and challenging debate. I'm particularly glad that we were able to avoid getting bogged down by semantics, disputed definitions and the like and have a robust discussion about the pros and cons of nuclear energy. A number of matters have been considered, but essentially most of the disagreement has been concerning two issues - whether nuclear power is financially viable, and whether it is safe. If the answer to these questions is yes, Pro has made his case. If the answer is no, then we have to conclude that atomic power is not beneficial. Is nuclear power financially viable? Pro has provided several graphs which look quite impressive, yet fail to tell the true story. The LCOE figures presented in round two appear to show nuclear power in a favorable light compared to all other sources, and yet as I have pointed out, there is no indication that they take into account the massive subsidies and post-production costs which falsely lower the apparent cost per unit of production. The two graphs Pro presents in round four do claim to include startup costs, however the very significant costs associated with decommissioning of the reactor at the end of its life do not appear to be factored into the equation. In round 4, Pro quotes Ellen Vancko of the Union of Concerned Scientists in support of his case. Unfortunately, the source of the quote is not given, and I am unable to match the quoted text using Google search. But there is no worse source that Pro could possibly quote on the subject. Ellen Vancko and her organization have published some of the most detailed and scathing criticisms of the financial viability of nuclear power to be found anywhere. I will finish my critique of Pro's arguments on this topic by reproducing a little of what a press report which announced the release of their 146 page study of the topic has to say on the subject: "...subsidies have supported every stage of the nuclear fuel cycle from uranium mining to long-term waste storage. Added together, these subsidies often have exceeded the average market price of the power produced." It goes on to say "The cost of this technology continues to escalate despite billions in subsidies to both existing and proposed plants. Instead of committing billions in new subsidies that would further distort the market in favor of nuclear power, we should focus on more cost-effective energy sources that will reduce carbon emissions more quickly and with less risk".[1] Is nuclear power safe? In round four, Pro makes the statement "I'm not sure why my opponent keeps arguing about the deadly risks of nuclear power when I've pointed out several times it's [sic] safety record". The reason I keep arguing about it is because the safety record Pro is suggesting is a fabrication of atomic energy interests, and pro appears to have swallowed it hook, line and sinker. Let's look at Pro's claims one by one: * Three Mile Island was "fully contained" This was indeed the official line from the power plant operators and the early studies. But "A new analysis of health statistics in the region conducted by the Radiation and Public Health Project has, however, found that death rates for infants, children, and the elderly soared in the first two years after the Three Mile Island accident in Dauphin and surrounding counties."[2] How could this be? Well, this same article also reports disturbing events well away from the supposedly "contained" disaster area, including: "Jean Trimmer, a farmer who lived in Lisburn, Pa. about 10 miles west of TMI. On the evening of March 30, 1979, Trimmer stepped outside on her front porch to fetch her cat when she was hit with a blast of heat and rain. Soon after, her skin became red and itchy as if badly sunburned, a condition known as erythema. About three weeks later, her hair turned white and began falling out. Not long after, she reported, her left kidney "just dried up and disappeared" -- an occurrence so strange that her case was presented to a symposium of doctors at the nearby Hershey Medical Center. All of those symptoms are consistent with high-dose radiation exposure."[3] This and many other experiences have become the subjects of more than one book. * Fukushima resulted in no deaths This is perhaps the most brazen lie of all to come out of pro-nuclear groups. It has been observed that "lower levels of radioactivity take time to result in cancer and other illnesses - that there is a 5 to 40 year 'incubation period'"[4]. It is not yet four years since the Fukushima disaster, so the worst is still to come. Quoting the same article, here are a few more estimates and observations: Dr. Chris Busby, scientific secretary of the European Committee on Radiation Risk predicts "a death toll of more than a million". Arnie Gundersen, a former nuclear industry senior vice president, has said: "The health impacts to the Japanese will begin to be felt in several years and out to 30 or 40 years from cancers. And I believe we're going to see as many as a million cancers over the next 30 years because of the Fukushima incident in Japan." Dr. Helen Caldicott, a founder of Physicians for Social Responsibility, is also quoted: "The accident is enormous in its medical implications. It will induce an epidemic of cancer as people inhale the radioactive elements, eat radioactive vegetables, rice and meat, and drink radioactive milk and teas. As radiation from ocean contamination bio-accumulates up the food chain ... radioactive fish will be caught thousands of miles from Japanese shores. As they are consumed, they will continue the the cycle of contamination, proving that no matter where you are, all major nuclear accidents become local." * Chernobyl was the result of major design deficiencies and bad safety measures Chernobyl's meltdown occurred in 1986. Fukushima was 25 years later, in 2011, just three and a half years ago. This demonstrates that in spite of the supposed vast improvements that have been made, disastrous failures still can occur, threatening hundreds of thousands to millions of lives with each event. The supposed safety record of the nuclear industry is based on denials and cover-ups, not on fact. Concluding remarks: Pro has made several references to the cost and safety of nuclear power compared to old technologies such as fossil fuels. There is little point in debating any of this, as we appear to be in agreement that fossil fuels should be a thing of the past. The choice, then, comes down to nuclear energy or renewables, such as wind and solar. Of these, not only has nuclear only survived for over fifty years because of massive subsidies and ignoring hundreds of billions of dollars in costs due to accidents, but the costs of production are continually rising, and the demands on the public to subsidize these facilities are becoming intolerable. In contrast, the cost of solar PV has plummeted over a 30 year period "from $22 dollars in 1980 down to under $3 today" [5] (2010 figure). According to the same source, "battery prices are dropping exponentially too". With far less propping up from the public purse than nuclear has received for decades, renewable energy technologies such wind and solar power can become cheaper than both fossil fuels and nuclear. And they can achieve it with minimal scarring of the landscape, and without leaving a radioactive legacy that will last long after humans no longer inhabit the planet. As I have referred to before, countries across Europe are turning away from dirty, dangerous nuclear energy - it is just not worth the risk to our planet or our people. Nuclear energy is not beneficial. References: [1] http://www.ucsusa.org... [2] http://pittsburgh.about.com... [3] http://www.southernstudies.org... [4] http://www.theecologist.org... [5] http://rameznaam.com...