P. 1
WHAM Nuclear Powr AFf Final

WHAM Nuclear Powr AFf Final

|Views: 31|Likes:
Publicado porAffNeg.Com

More info:

Published by: AffNeg.Com on Dec 16, 2008
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

10/16/2011

pdf

text

original

Nucler Waste is No Issue—Over 90% Can Be Recycled

Gilbert J. Brown, professor of nuclear engineering and the coordinator of the Nuclear Engineering Program at
UMass-Lowell, 8-2-07, The Boston Globe, Energy and the Simpsons, lexis, bc
As some of the world's greatest consumers of energy, we are looking for cleaner and more efficient sources to
meet the growing demand for electricity - expected to rise 40 percent in the United States by 2030. Today, more
and more Americans understand that real nuclear by-products are not uncontrolled green ooze but rather
used nuclear fuel that is managed safely and securely on-site.
And, as nuclear technology advances, over 90
percent of used fuel could be recycled to fuel nuclear power plants again and again
.

Nuclear energy tries to clean up pressure to cut greenhouse gas emissions combined with
new technology may make nuclear a greener option
Financial
Times October 28 2005, Understanding Environmental Technology, LC,

For the past 20 years, they have been seen as dangerous and uneconomic. Moreover, countries have been unsure
about how to dispose of the dangerous radioactive waste they produce. But supporters of nuclear power say that

advances in technology have enabled the construction of a new generation of nuclear plants that are cheaper,
safer and produce less waste than their predecessors. A key change, they argue, is that modern reactors are
designed to shut down in the absence of constant intervention.
At the same time, within a few years China hopes
to be self-sufficient in reactor design and construction. It plans to build a next-generation "pebble-bed" reactor,
which uses helium rather than water to cool nuclear fuels. Proponents say this new technology is far safer and
cheaper than existing designs; detractors argue it produces more dangerous radioactive waste. Still, some leaders of
the green movement now believe that the risks posed by climate change outweigh those posed by radioactive
waste.
From an environmental perspective, one of the most intractable problems faced by the nuclear industry
is what to do with the radioactive waste from existing facilities, some of which will remain dangerous for
centuries.

Non-unique - Lots of nuclear waste now.
Brad Glosserman is Director of Research at Pacific Forum CSIS, a Honolulu-based think tank, and a
Contributing Editor to The Japan Times. June 15, 2001. Pac Net. Solving Asia's Nuclear-Waste Dilemma. AP.
http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/pac0125.pdf

A half century of nuclear development has left a considerable legacy. It is estimated that world
accumulation of spent fuel will reach 341,095 tons by 2010; Asia's share is 50,610 tons. That is enough
material to cover a road 10 meters wide and 300 km long to a depth of one meter.
That mountain of
radioactive waste will accumulate even if no additional nuclear capacity is installed
in Northeast Asia; it
is the product of plants already under construction or which were well in to the planning stage. Were that not
sobering enough, there is the fact that that waste will contain 450 tons of plutonium. Dealing with that
waste is, argues Ron Smith, director of defense and strategic studies at the University of Waikato, New
Zealand and who has been studying the back-end problem for several years, "the Achilles heel of the nuclear
question."

Nuclear waste can be recycled for more energy
Thomas Tantonan adjunct scholar at the Institute for Energy Research and was a Principal Policy Advisor with
the California Energy Commission (CEC.) 3/26/2008. Sacramento Union Op-Ed. Nuclear Renaissance? AP.
http://liberty.pacificresearch.org/publications/id.3758/pub_detail.asp

Rather than dispose of spent fuel, however, we could follow the French. Using technology we
developed, they recycle the fuel for even more energy
. California, after all, is a national leader in
recycling. Nuclear power can be slightly more expensive than coal-fired power, but the current energy
options allowed in California are far more expensive than either coal or nuclear, and coal has become subject
of an effective ban in California as well.

SDI 2008

86 of 249

WHAM!

AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

Turn – nuclear power generates less hazardous waste than other power sources and they
monitor it to ensure safety.
James M. Taylor 7/1/06, “WWF Australia Joins Pro-Nuclear Camp” o.z.
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=19337&CFID=5925006&CFTOKEN=69480619
Others Switching Sides Bourne joins a substantial number of environmental activists who have indicated
support for nuclear power as a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Patrick Moore, one of the founders
of Greenpeace; James Lovelock, creator of the Gaia Earth theory; and Hugh Montefiore, former chairman
and trustee for Friends of the Earth, are just a few of the high-profile environmental activists who have
recently switched sides on the nuclear issue. "Nuclear power plants do not produce greenhouse gases or
nitrogen oxide or sulfur dioxide," explained
Adrian Heymer, senior director for new plant deployment
at the Nuclear Energy Institute. "This, of course, gives nuclear a tremendous environmental advantage
over other economically competitive power sources.
"Compared with a lot of other industries,"
Heymer added, "we don't generate as much hazardous waste. Plus, we monitor it--we know where it is,
and we make sure that people and the environment are adequately protected from it."

No real impact – if anything low level exposure to radiations helps humans.
Jack Dini and Jay Lehr, Ph.D 3/1/08 “Over Time, Nuclear Power Skeptic Becomes Advocate” Published in The
Environment & Climate News by The Heartland Institute o.z.
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22788&CFID=5911648&CFTOKEN=55847241
The annual public radiation exposure permitted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for nuclear
facilities is 15 millirem. The average person in the United States is exposed to 200 millirem of radiation per
year. If you spent all your time in Grand Central Station, you would get an annual radiation dose of nearly
600 millirem. At Three Mile Island, the total calculated dose Pennsylvanians received after the
accident was far less than the measured dose New Mexicans receive from nature every day.
Interestingly,
in New Mexico the cancer rate is much lower than the national average although natural
background radiation is much higher than the national average. The same is true for Denver.

Residents of Finland receive an annual dose of radiation three times higher than a person would receive
living in the zone surrounding Chernobyl now excluded from habitation. As of 2006, nuclear-powered
submarines and ships had safely traveled a total of 134 million miles and registered 5,700 naval reactor
years of safe operation with a total of 254 reactors.
Hormesis What may explain these facts is the
biological theory of hormesis: Organisms are made more resilient by low-level exposure to a substance
that is toxic in larger doses
. Cravens covers this topic, but in attempting to present both sides of the issue
she does not cover the wide literature base of studies on animals and humans that confirm the
beneficial effects of low-level radiation.
Edward Calabrese of the University of Massachusetts-Amherst
has published extensively in this field and is a good source for additional information. In spite of this
science, governments continue to use the linear no-threshold model, which says any radiation dose, no
matter how small, is harmful. Misuse of this model has produced spending in excess of $1 trillion in the
United States alone for negligible health benefits just for government environmental cleanup
programs, while truly significant measures that would protect the public health remain unfunded
.

We can figure out how to solve the waste problem.

Gail Chaddock, Staff Writer, 6-5-08, Christian Science Monitor, Economic riskes imperil climate change,
lexis, bc
There's also still the huge problem of where to put the waste. But as Rudy Giuliani suggested recently, if
a bunch of European socialists can figure out what to do with the radioactive leftovers, why can't we?

"France is ahead of us in nuclear power," he said recently, with the same sort of disgust he might use in
reporting that the Red Sox were ahead of his beloved Yankees.

SDI 2008

87 of 249

WHAM!

AFF Nuclear Power 4.0

You're Reading a Free Preview

Descarga
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->