Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
Value: Life, as it is a government's obligation to promote the life of it's citizen, and it is the
basis for all other values.
fuelled the discussion about nuclear energy and triggered Germany's exit from their nuclear power
program. It appears that the global risk of such a catastrophe is higher than previously thought,
a result of a study carried out by a research team led by Jos Lelieveld, Director of the Max Planck
Institute for Chemistry in Mainz: "After Fukushima, the prospect of such an incident occurring again
came into question, and whether we can actually calculate the radioactive fallout using our atmospheric
models." According to the results of the study, a nuclear meltdown in one of the reactors in operation
worldwide is likely to occur once in 10 to 20 years. Currently, there are 440 nuclear reactors in
operation, and 60 more are planned.
Due to the fact that the AFF prohibits production of Nuclear reactors, it then follows
that there is a decrease in the Chance for Nuclear Meltdown as Nuclear reactors will
no longer be in operation.
Nuclear currently has a large amount of fatalities
Sovacool, Benjamin K. Professor of public policy at the University of Singapore. "Nuclear Accidents Are
Common and Pose Inevitable Safety Risks." Nuclear Power. Ed. Lynn M. Zott and Helga Schier. Detroit: Greenhaven
Press, 2013. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "The Dirt on Nuclear Power." www.projectsyndicate.org. 2011. Opposing
Viewpoints in Context. Web. 25 June 2015.
The International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale uses a seven-level ranking scheme to rate the
significance of nuclear and radiological events: levels 1-3 are "incidents," and 4-7 are "accidents," with a
"Level 7 Major Accident" consisting of "a major release of radioactive material with widespread health and
environmental effects requiring implementation of planned and extended countermeasures."
Under these classifications, the number of nuclear accidents, even including the meltdowns at Fukushima
Daiichi and Fukushima Daini, is low. But if one redefines an accident to include incidents that either resulted
in the loss of human life or more than $50,000 in property damage, a very different picture emerges.At least
99 nuclear accidents meeting this definition, totaling more than $20.5 billion in damages, occurred worldwide
from 1952 to 2009or more than one incident and $330 million in damage every year, on average, for the
past three decades. And, of course, this average does not include the Fukushima catastrophe.Indeed, when
compared to other energy sources, nuclear power ranks higher than oil, coal, and natural gas systems in
terms of fatalities, second only to hydroelectric dams. There have been 57 accidents since the Chernobyl
disaster in 1986. While only a few involved fatalities, those that did collectively killed more people than have
died in commercial US airline accidents since 1982.Another index of nuclear-power accidentsthis one
including costs beyond death and property damage, such as injured or irradiated workers and malfunctions
that did not result in shutdowns or leaksdocumented 956 incidents from 1942 to 2007. And yet another
documented more than 30,000 mishaps at US nuclear-power plants alone, many with the potential to have
caused serious meltdowns, between the 1979 accident at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania and 2009.
radioactive contamination, the researchers calculated how the particles of radioactive caesium-137
(137Cs) disperse in the atmosphere, where they deposit on the earths surface and in what quantities.
The 137Cs isotope is a product of the nuclear fission of uranium. It has a half-life of 30 years
and was one of the key elements in the radioactive contamination following the disasters of
Chernobyl and Fukushima. The computer simulations revealed that, on average, only eight percent of
the137Cs particles are expected to deposit within an area of 50 kilometres around the nuclear accident
site. Around 50 percent of the particles would be deposited outside a radius of 1,000 kilometres,
and around 25 percent would spread even further than 2,000 kilometres. These results underscore
that reactor accidents are likely to cause radioactive contamination well beyond national
borders. The results of the dispersion calculations were combined with the likelihood of a nuclear
meltdown and the actual density of reactors worldwide to calculate the current risk of radioactive
contamination around the world. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), an area
with more than 40 kilobecquerels of radioactivity per square meter is defined as contaminated. The
team in Mainz found that in Western Europe, where the density of reactors is particularly high, the
contamination by more than 40 kilobecquerels per square meter is expected to occur once in about
every 50 years. It appears that citizens in the densely populated southwestern part of Germany run the
worldwide highest risk of radioactive contamination, associated with the numerous nuclear power plants
situated near the borders between France, Belgium and Germany, and the dominant westerly wind
direction. If a single nuclear meltdown were to occur in Western Europe, around 28 million
people on average would be affected by contamination of more than 40 kilobecquerels per
square meter. This figure is even higher in southern Asia, due to the dense populations. A major
nuclear accident there would affect around 34 million people, while in the eastern USA and in
East Asia this would be 14 to 21 million
In fact, that disaster [Chernobyl] killed nearly one million people worldwide from nuclear radiation
exposure. In their book titled, "Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the
Environment," Alexey Yablokov, Vassily Nesterenko and Alexey Nesterenko said: "For the past 23
years, it has been clear that there is a danger greater than nuclear weapons concealed within
nuclear power. Emissions from this one reactor exceeded a hundred-fold the radioactive
contamination of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki." "No citizen of any country can
be assured that he or she can be protected from radioactive contamination. One nuclear reactor
can pollute half the globe. Chernobyl fallout covers the entire Northern Hemisphere."
Contention 2: Terrorism
nuclear power expands proliferation risks
Michael Mariotte, Executive Director, Nuclear Information and Resource Service, May 2008, False
Promises, http://www.nirs.org/falsepromises.pdf
There is an inextricable link between nuclear power and nuclear weapons. The technology for producing nuclear
fuel is the same technology used to produce nuclear weapons materials. Proliferation-resistant technologies provide some barriers to
proliferation, but there
even if reactor grade plutonium is not the most convenient isotope to effectively build a nuclear
bomb, it can nevertheless be used to make weapons. According to the DOE, Virtually any combination
of plutonium isotopes can be used to make a nuclear weapon. [] In short, reactor-grade plutonium
is weapons-usable, whether by unsophisticated proliferators or by advanced nuclear weapon states.
Civilian power increases the risk of nuclear fuel cycle materials being used for weapons
America Magazine, June 23, 2008, http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?
article_id=10884
Nuclear energy actually increases the risks of weapons proliferation because the same technology used
for civilian atomic power can be used for weapons, as the cases of India, Iran, Iraq, North Korea and Pakistan illustrate. As
the Swedish Nobel Prize winner Hannes Alven put it, The military atom and the civilian atom are Siamese twins. Yet if the world
stopped building nuclear-power plants, bomb ingredients would be harder to acquire, more conspicuous
and more costly politically, if nations were caught trying to obtain them. Their motives for seeking
nuclear materials would be unmasked as military, not civilian.
THIS MEANS THAT BANNING NUCLEAR POWER IS THE ONLY WAY TO AVOID TERRORISM,
NOT SIMPLY JUST HEIGHTENING SECURITY
Westbury.Karl is also the author of Cover Up: What You Are Not Supposed to Know About Nuclear Power and other books on
nuclear technology, as well as hosting numerous TV programs on the subject including Chernobyl: A Million Casualties, Three Mile
Thats what nuclear power plants are. And thats another very big reasondemonstrated again in
recent days with the disclosure that two of the Brusselsterrorists were planning attacks on Belgian
nuclear plantswhy they must be eliminated. Nuclear power plants are sitting ducks for terrorists.
With most positioned along bays and rivers because of their need for massive amounts of coolant
water, they provide a clear shot. They are fully exposed for aerial strikes. The consequences of
such an attack could far outweigh the impacts of 9/11 and, according to the U.S. 9/11 Commission,
also originally considered in that attack was the use of hijacked planes to attack unidentified
nuclear power plants. The Indian Point nuclear plants 26 miles north of New York City
were believed to be candidates. As the Belgian newspaper Dernier Heure reported last week,
regarding the plan to strike a Belgian nuclear plant, investigators concluded that the target of
terrorists was to jeopardize national security like never before. The Union of Concerned
Scientists in a statement on Nuclear Security declares: Terrorists pose a real and significant
threat to nuclear power plants. The 2011 accident at Fukushima was a wake-up call reminding the
world of the vulnerability of nuclear power plants to natural disasters such as earthquakes and
floods. However, nature is not the only threat to nuclear facilities. They are inviting targets for
sabotage and terrorist attack. A successful attack on a nuclear plant could have devastating
consequences, killing, sickening or displacing large numbers of residents in the area surrounding
the plant, and causing extensive long-time environmental damage.
Nuclear Terrorism: A Clear Danger By KENNETH C. BRILL and KENNETH N. LUONGO MARCH 15,
2012 Kenneth C. Brill is a former U.S. ambassador to the I.A.E.A.Kenneth N. Luongo is president of
the Partnership for Global Security. Both are members of the Fissile Material Working Group, a
nonpartisan nongovernmental organization.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/16/opinion/nuclear-terrorism-a-clear-danger.html?_r=0
Terrorists exploit gaps in security. The current global regime for protecting the nuclear materials
that
nations, the heads of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the United Nations, and numerous experts have called nuclear terrorism one
a nuclear weapon. It is quite possible to make an improvised nuclear device from highly enriched uranium or plutonium being used for civilian
purposes. And there is a black market in such material.
nuclear material.
In 2011, the Moldovan police broke up part of a smuggling ring attempting to sell highly enriched uranium; one member
Kofi Annan of the United Nations said that an act of nuclear terrorism would thrust tens of millions of people into dire poverty and create a
second death toll throughout the developing world.