Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Impact Defense File

AT: North Korea Prolif

TOKYO: The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s (DPRK) nuclear test is unlikely to spark a nuclear arms race in Asia, but analysts say Japan and the Republic of Korea (ROK) may seek to beef up their missile defenses and pre-emptive capabilities against Pyongyang. Pyongyang’s second nuclear test came weeks after it fired a long-range rocket that flew over northern Japan, a clear message that the DPRK is developing a nuclear weapon and the means to deliver it. But analysts say the DPRK’s actions are defensive, while its neighbors are already under a US deterrent.“The barriers to developing nuclear weapons are extremely high and both countries come under the US nuclear umbrella, so the chances of them actually developing nuclear weapons are slim,” said Shi Yinhong, an international security expert at Renmin University in Beijing.

AT: Nuclear Radiation

1. Radiation fears are just that, nuclear industry workers have best health record

Brian Downing Quig (program director Decentria) March 22 1997 The Journal of History, “The integral fast reactor could usher in the hydrogen economy”, http://truedemocracy.net/td2_4/57-fast.html]

There is a very unscientific media fed phobia of anything nuclear in this country. Except for the slightest short lived perturbations following atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons there has never been a measurable increase in background radiation that our most delicate instruments could detect. If low level radiation was so harmful, it would make sense to filter radon gas which accounts for more than half of the 360 millirems exposure of average US citizens. The health of nuclear workers in the U.S. is measurably better than other occupations. They are essentially the only persons receiving even the slightest elevated dosage.
2. Empirically denied – if the impact were true, we should all already be dead from radiation poisoning – nuclear plants have been around since the 50’s.

AT: Nuclear Reactor Meltdowns

1. Nuclear plants are safe – no risk of meltdowns

Kart 08 (Jeff Kart, Bay City Times, NUCLEAR ENERGY: THE 'NEW' ALTERNATIVE TO COAL?, Feb. 6, 2008, http://www.mlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2008/02/nuclear_energy_the_new_alterna.html)

Forrest J. Remick, professor emeritus of nuclear engineering at Penn State University, calls nuclear power "very safe." The industrial accident rate for nuclear plants is 14.6 times less than for all manufacturing industries, Remick asserts in an article on the Penn State Web site. As well, no member of the public has been killed or injured from radiation during the nearly 50 years that commercial nuclear plants have been operating in the U.S., according to Remick and others. Gard said the money spent on another Fermi plant would be better used to help reduce energy demand in Michigan, by offering incentives for homes and businesses to install energy- efficient appliances and equipment, for instance. If forced to choose, Gard said he'd rather see a coal plant that captures its carbon dioxide than a new nuclear plant generating more nuclear waste. For their part, Consumers Energy officials have said it would take too long to permit a nuclear plant here before demand outpaces supply. The utility plans to install additional pollution controls for a new coal plant in Bay County, leaving room for carbon capture technology in the future, said Jeff Holyfield, a Consumers spokesman. Last year, Cravens, of Long Island, N.Y., published a book, with references, called "Power to Save the World: The Truth About Nuclear Energy." She said most people don't realize that a nuclear plant can't explode like a nuclear bomb, and the industry's two most prominent accidents weren't as catastrophic as many people believe. According to a fact sheet from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the partial meltdown of the reactor core at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania in 1979 "led to no deaths or injuries to plant workers or members of the nearby community." The accident caused the NRC "to tighten and heighten its regulatory oversight" and "had the effect of enhancing safety," the agency says. The 1986 Chernobyl accident in the Ukraine was much worse, but involved a bad reactor design that is not used in the U.S., Cravens and others argue. Twenty-eight workers died in the first four months after the Chernobyl accident, but the majority of 5 million residents living in contaminated areas around the site received only small radiation doses, according to the NRC. Soot in the air from coal generation, on the other hand, is estimated to cause more than 20,000 premature deaths a year in the U.S., according to a study done by a consultant to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Radiation from nuclear plants is a concern. But that's why the reactor at Fermi is shielded by 10-12 inches of steel and about 12 feet of concrete, said John Austerberry, a DTE spokesman. The plant also has numerous backup water and power systems to make sure the reactor operates safely. Adrian Heymer is a senior director at the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry group in Washington, D.C. After a 30-year lull following the Three Mile Island incident, U.S. utilities have recently submitted 17 applications for as many as 30 new reactors around the country, Heymer said. The NRC has revamped its licensing process, and the federal Energy Policy Act of 2005 provides incentives for utilities to construct new plants. DTE could be eligible for up to $300 million in incentives for Fermi 3. France already gets 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear power. The U.S. gets more than half of its power from coal, and 20 percent from more than 100 nuclear reactors. The next generation of U.S. nuclear plants will be even safer than the current fleet, Heymer said. The industry hopes to move to an integrated spent fuel management system, with advanced recycling and processing. That would reduce waste and eliminate generating a stream of plutonium during recycling "that makes things go bang," Heymer said. "The systems are very reliable," he said of the next generation of nuclear plants. "You've got less to go wrong. They are simpler, with fewer components, fewer moving components, so there's less to break down. Your probability of having an event that causes the fuel to melt is a lot lower. ... "The probability of having a Three Mile Island type event today, with existing plants, is about 1 in 100,000. "The probability on some of the new designs is close to 1 in 500 million."

2. The probability of this impact is non-existent - one accident every billion years of operation.

(Bernard L. Cohen (no date given) “The Nuclear Power Advantage “

http://www.ecolo.org/documents/documents_in_english/nuclear_advantage_Cohen.en.htm)

The same reasoning applies to nuclear reactor accidents. Situations causing any number of deaths are possible, but the greater the consequences, the lower is the probability. The worst accident the RSS considered would cause about 50,000 deaths, with a probability of one occurrence in a billion years of reactor operation. A person's risk of being a victim of such an accident is 20,000 times less than the risk of being killed by lightning, and 1,000 times less than the risk of death from an airplane crashing into his or her house.7

3. No impact – one reactor meltdown will not lead to their impact – unless they can prove a chain of reactor meltdowns, the impacts won’t happen.
4. Don’t evaluate disease spread impacts – they won’t cause extinction and would not be widespread. Their impact evidence doesn’t assume diseases from nuclear plants, it assumes current diseases which means the impact would be inevitable anyway.

Directory: files -> documents
documents -> North Mankato Taylor Library
documents -> In the Red and Brown Water
documents -> -
documents -> I. Disaster Summary Sheet II. Tropical Cyclones
documents -> Cbp and Trade Automated Interface Requirements Appendix: pga december 22, 2015
documents -> Ace abi catair customs and Trade Automated Interface Requirements
documents -> Ace abi catair customs and Trade Automated Interface Requirements
documents -> Mobile audio/video recording systems
documents -> Cartographic Concepts for Realizing a Location Based umts service
documents -> 1/ Background Statistics Human development index rank

Download 2.71 Mb.

Share with your friends: