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

I affirm Resolved: On balance, the benefits of nuclear power outweigh the risks. To win this debate, I only need to show that, in general principles (on balance), the benefits associated with nuclear power as a whole outweigh the risks of the technology. For example, Three Mile Island is an atypical example of nuclear power as a whole, and is therefore not an accurate way to frame this debate. I will now first address my opponent's case before introducing my own.1. Construction Costs:Listing two or three examples is not an accurate representation of the nuclear industry as a whole. The average nuclear power plant is in fact extremely beneficial to local economies, resulting in a net economic gain that far exceeds construction costs. The numbers speak for themselves: the average nuclear plant generates 400-700 permanent jobs, $20 million in total state and local tax revenue, $75 in federal tax payments, and nearly $430 million in local economic output annually. [(1) http://flv.texasgulfcoastonline.com...]Considering that the life of a typical nuclear reactor is 30-40 years, total community economic output ($430,000,000 x 30, $430,000,000 x 40) amounts to $12.9-17.2 billion. This exceeds the already atypical $8 billion in start-up costs cited by my opponent. [(2) http://www.iaea.org...]Therefore, the typical economic benefits of a nuclear power plant are greater than the economic investment.2. Health EffectsThis seems to be the structure of Con's argument:P1: Exposure to a lot of radiation is detrimental one's health.P2: There's a lot of radiation at nuclear power plants.C: Therefore, working at a nuclear power plant is detrimental to one's health.While nuclear power plants obviously have higher radiation levels than surrounding environments, my opponent only cites health detriments to extreme amounts of radiation exposure, without regard to the amount actually present at power plants.From the New York Times, March 14, 2011 [(3) http://www.nytimes.com...]:"[I]n the United States the usual radiation exposure limit for nuclear power plant workers is 50 millisieverts, or 5 rem, per year (compared with the 0.3 rem that the Environmental Protection Agency says most people get from normal background radiation). When there is an emergency, the limit can be raised to 25 rem, which is still far below the level at which people would show symptoms or get sick."Radiation exposure is further mitigated by the fact that in areas with the most potential for exposure, workers wear full-body suits and/or take shifts to reduce the intensity of absorption. Concerns for surrounding communities are also alleviated in that emissions by nuclear plants into environmental surroundings are insignificant compared to natural levels already present [(4) http://www.heritage.org...].If my opponent really wants to get into human health and its relation to nuclear power plants, it is worth noting that most plant workers are unionized and generally receive health insurance and other benefits, as well as exercise on the job [(5) http://centralny.ynn.com...].3. MeltdownsCon cites only two meltdown scenarios (Chernobyl and Three Mile Island) to justify the inherent risks of nuclear power. Today, such concerns are unfounded. Modern nuclear reactors are free from the design flaws that caused the Chernobyl plant to explode, and reactors now have multiple containment cores to prevent the escape of nuclear material even if an accident does occur [(6) http://discovermagazine.com...].The Three Mile island meltdown was also contained, and no detrimental health effects have been reported. Today's water reactors, which slow neuron emissions to keep reaction rates steady, make major meltdowns extremely improbable [6]. Regarding storage, my opponent admits that storing nuclear waste in steel and concrete casks is optimal, but that Congress has not acted on such proposals. This has nothing to do with the risks of nuclear waste, which can in fact be stored safely, but rather the ineptitude of Congress itself. This point should be dropped from the round.When stored in steel and concrete casks, uranium waste can be stored for at least a century, and can often be recycled to meet future energy needs., In fact, an amount the volume of one's fingertip posseses the energy potential of 1,780 pounds of coal [6]. Such uranium is useful, efficient, and can be stored safely.4. TerrorismContrary to my opponent's claims, modern plants are built to survive a terrorist attack. Plants are built to withstand the impact of a passenger airplane [1]. Further, if pilots are caught loitering over nuclear sites, the FAA has a policy of detaining and interrogating those responsible [4].Con claims that terrorists have an incentive to attack nuclear power plants, but terrorists also have an incentive to attack oil rigs, atomic testing sites, and the White House. As Jack Spencer of the Heritage Foundation explains, "A successful terrorist attack against a nuclear power plant could have severe consequences, as would attacks on schools, chemical plants, or ports. However, fear of a terrorist attack is not a sufficient reason to deny society access to any of these critical assets" [4]. At the point where my opponent never quantifies the likelihood of a terrorist attack on a nuclear facility, he is only operating on a "what-if" scenario without gauging either the intent of terrorist groups or the likelihood that they could even conduct a successful attack.In my case I will provide turn this point, showing that nuclear power actually reduces terrorist activity, thereby shifting this voting issue over to Pro side.Now for my case...1. Nuclear Energy is the Best Way to Reduce Carbon Dioxide EmissionsTotal emissions over the life of a nuclear plant (including uranium mining, shipping, construction, etc.) are about the same as hydroelectric plants and wind farms, and emit less carbon dioxide than solar plants. The efficiency of nuclear power (the energy potential of 1,780 pounds of coal in an area the size of a fingertip) plus the overall positive economic impact of power plants makes nuclear energy the best renewable energy option for the United States.2. Nuclear Energy Reduces TerrorismNuclear energy reduces U.S. dependence on oil from nations that continue to enable terrorist regimes. According to the Wall Street Journal, "One of the biggest dangers to our security is from oil nations providing support to anti-U.S. terrorist groups. The faster we can move away from carbon-based energy, the faster we take away that funding source" [(7) http://online.wsj.com...]. Nuclear energy reduces U.S. oil dependence on nations such as Saudi Arabia and Russia, the latter of which uses Iran to funnel weapons directly to Hezbollah [(8) http://www.cfr.org...].Nuclear power also reduces nuclear proliferation by terrorists. Atomic warheads are excellent as reactor fuel, and currently amount to 15% of world nuclear fuel. Expanding the use of nuclear energy and the resulting increased demand for reactor fuel will divert warheads away from terrorist groups, reducing the threat of nuclear terrorism against the U.S. [(9) http://www.spiked-online.com...]. ConclusionNuclear energy is a safe, reliable and efficient way for the United States to become energy independent while reducing greenhouse gas emissions and mitigating terrorist threats. The harms proposed by my opponent are insignificant if not nonexistant. On balance, the benefits of nuclear power outweigh the risks. The resolution is affirmed.