Nuclear Power and its role.

I have recently joined a debate site, www.debate.org, and have spent a lot of time there.  One of the favorite debates that I have done so far is in regards to Nuclear Energy.

http://www.debate.org/debate/11212/

I would like to thank my opponent for starting this debate and look forward to debating someone from my own area.

1) I would like to address the mentioning of Chernobyl, even though it is out of order, because it is the most misunderstood argument that is used against nuclear power. "The Chernobyl accident in 1986 was the result of a flawed reactor design that was operated with inadequately trained personnel." [1] We also need to note that Chernobyl was a steam explosion, not a nuclear explosion. And was caused by a combination of very poor decisions, from the lacking of basic safety, even for that era, to poor training, to management personnel that was more interested in not looking bad then real issues. The safety issues that happened at Chernobyl were already impossible in the US because of the mechanical safety features we had back in the 80's and our safety has only gotten better.

2) "There is no way to permanently and securely store nuclear waste." I have to disagree with this on two points, first, we don't have to "store" it. The most common nuclear material is U-235 (Uranium) and it is found naturally across the planet. [2] If we have to be completely safe, it is possible to de-rich uranium (though it is more costly then storing it is depleted and takes up much more space) so that it can be put back in the ground just as it came out, as safe to nature as it has always been. But even without going through that much effort, the storage of fuel is actually extremely safe. The Science behind the yucca mountain shows that it is a safe storage [3], and actually the main fear is that water will corrode the containers if it rains too heavily over enough decades. However, it is possible to upkeep the containers (since we upkeep all our roads and buildings and everything else from corrosion), and we can even design the containers to be extremely immune to corrosion [4] so that the life span goes from decades to centuries to possible millennia.

Nuclear power plants also don't produce that much waste, about 20 tons a year per plant. [5] That's the same amount of waste (by weight, not volume) as about 25 people, per year. [6] So when we stop and think about it, it really isn't that much.

Going back to safety. Nuclear waste containers have some of the best safety features of any engineered structure. [7] And to show the kind of tests these have to go through. [8] They test those buggers for everything! We have PBRs (Pebble Bed Reactors) that add a whole new level on safety. [9][10] A PBR is "a reactor whose safety is a matter of physics, not operator skill or reinforced concrete." We also have Fusion reactors which are starting to pick up steam (couldn't resist the old energy pun from the steam power days). And they too have their safety built in the laws of physics [11] in that if something happens that jeopardizes the power plant, the nuclear reaction will come to a stop on its own, rather then snowball out of control.

That is a simple look at the science of the safety, now lets look at the history of the safety, since this is the only aspect where nuclear power have blemishes, since certain nations choose to let their safety slide, they have become bad marks on the entire nuclear concept. But in the USA, not a single human being has EVER died from an incident related to a nuclear power plant or its waste. [12] The most famous incident in US history is the TMI incident, which actually should have been a beacon of hope and success. A most basic back story, in 1979, the TMI nuclear power plant had to be evacuated because a partial meltdown began to happen. The wonderful part about what really happened was that the plant managed to cool itself down on it's own. The built in mechanical safety features protected it from anything really bad from happening. While just over the vent stack, readings up to 1,200 millirems were recorded (indicating that radioactive material was making it out into the environment. The government maintained a registry for 18 years of the 30,000 people that lived in the vicinity and found that they did not experience ANY health fallout (no increased rate of cancer, no increased rate of birth defects, no increased rate of brain issues). [13][14][15]

Research has shown that nuclear workers will, on average, be subjected to about 1,000 millirem per year (compared to the average individual who gets about 360 per year), and that will, on average, lessen the workers life by about 50 days, compared to being 15 pounds overweight (lessens your life by about 2 years) or smoking a pack a day (6 years).[12]

It is also only fair to compare this energy source to other ones, such as coal or oil. Those industries can only wish for the environmental and safety history of US nuclear power plants. If my opponent wishes to challenge this argument, I'll provide sources then, but right now, it is getting late, so I'll end this round here.

[1] http://www.world-nuclear.org...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[3] http://www.npr.org...

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[5] http://www.nei.org...

[6] http://www.wisegeek.com...

[7] http://www.algor.com...

[9] http://nextbigfuture.com...

[10] http://www.wired.com...

[11] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[12] http://www.manhattan-institute.org...

[13] http://www.nrc.gov...

[14] http://www.world-nuclear.org...

[15] http://en.wikipedia.org...

"Nuclear waste doesn't just go away." I will address this in several ways.
A) The nice thing is, that it actually does, just really slowly. But I see that my opponent did not mention anything about how all this radioactive material is found in the ground [my #2 link, last round and my opponent's #3 link this round], it is a part of nature. It physically can be diluted back to what nature had it as and put back in nature, zero sum.
B) The sunshine canyon landfill can hold 90 million tons of waste[1]. And a new land fill outside of LA will be taking 20,000 tons a day for the next hundred years (700 million tons of waste)[2]. First thing to point out is that I'm not advocating these particular locations, only pointing out that we have the space. Since the average nuclear site produces 20 tons of waste a year, 10,000 nuclear reactors (which is over 20 times our current world amount of 436[3]) would produce 200,000 tons a year, and would take 3,500 years to fill that one single location (and we could have more then one, easily).
C) Looking at the potential a 700 million ton land fill. We can also see that if the land fill was full of 700 million tons of nuclear waste, breaking down with a 1/2 life of 324,000 years, means that 350 million tons would break down after 324,000 years, or at a rate of 750 tons per year (1 - (.5)^(1/324000)), or enough for almost 36 nuclear reactors running full time with the amount of waste they produce actually breaking down, so no net volume is added. And remember that is for a single land fill site (we can have more then one and also remember that I am not suggesting that particular site but only the concept that it is physically possible).

[1] http://www.sunshinecanyonlandfill.com...
[2] http://articles.latimes.com...
[3] http://www.world-nuclear.org...

This doesn't even go into detail the possibilities of the future.  Ideally, waste disposal wouldn't be done on Earth.  Waste would be ejected from Earth, into either Jupiter or the Sun.  Many look at that as too futuristic to be plausible, and in some ways it is true.  We do not have the technology to make those idea economically or logistically feasible, yet.  When we stop and look at how far aerial travel has come in the last 100 years, or how far space travel has come in the last 50 years, we know that where we will be 50 years from now is going to be unimaginably faster, safer, and cheaper then it is right now.  Now 50 years from now is something that we can easily do for nuclear power, heck we have the technology that we can wait for hundreds of years before running into trouble, even thousands.

But one can stop and ask "why?  why do we need this?" that is simple.  For one, it is cheaper for the people to be powered by nuclear power then coal (our current main power source) and so will save people and businesses money and that will lead to a better economy.  That right there is more then enough justification to answer the "why," but the other thing that allows is to free up millions of tons of coal that is currently being devoured by our power plants.  This coal is then free to sell to other nations that still use coal and so bring in billions of dollars in exports (benefitting our economy even more).  And the selling of coal to third world nations will allow them to power their nations and so move our of the dark ages.  Once out of the dark ages, they can begin to go through the industrial revolution and have jobs for their people and that will allow their economy to blossom.  Once that happens, we then have more nations that we can sell our other products too, making for even more exports for us and more help to our economy.  So in the long run, our economy benefits 3x (the nuclear that saves money, selling coal to make money, and the emerging markets to make money) and other nations benefit by going through the industrial revolution.

National Security and Global Presence

$680 billion, guess what that number is.  That is the department of defense budget for 2010.  And $130 billion that goes to "overseas contingency operations."  That is up 3% from the year before.  Now, you may think that a 3% increase in 1 year is not that much growth, however we are suppose to be coming out of a war, so spending should be going down, not up.

We are a powerful nation, there is no denying that regardless of what you want to think.  And we have interests all around the world and a morale code (I would like to think at least) that says we must stand up against evil.  However, can we not find some sort of middle ground?  Can we not find a way to maintain and powerful military without blowing hundreds of billions of dollars every year on it?  Of course we can.  Military operations are not the same now as they were 40 years ago.  We no longer need huge armies with massive guns.  We need precision weapons and small strike forces.

Perfect example, the F-117.  They built 64 of them total, and only lost 1 ever.  During the gulf war (the first one), these jets only made up 2.5% of our entire Air Force roster, yet took out over 40% of the strategic targets in the war and flew over 6,900 combat hours, and didn't lose a single one.  Their first (and only loss) occurred in 1999, 18 years after first taking flight.  They retired in 2008 after 25 year of service.  That's how it should be done, high quality, high accuracy, low volume, low losses.  We need to focus on quality, not quantity.  That puts less american soldiers in danger, puts more money per soldier (since there are less to spread the money over) for better equipment and protection, and saves money so that it can be spent on a better home for them to come back to (since who wants to fight in a desert for 8 years to come home to a recession with 10%+ unemployment).

To move forward with this, we would need to focus the budget more on Research and Development, especially in the unmanned and remote controlled departments.  That will allow us to (over time) pull money out of the operations and personnel, and to pull people out of combat.

That covers the at home budget aspect, but there is also the need to do less.  We don't need troops stationed all over the world all the time.  We don't still need troops in Japan to protect them from communists.  I don't think Germany is about to go 4th reich on anyone here soon.  Cutting our scope will vastly cut costs, since not as many weapons need to be produced, not as many people need to be transported and trained and stationed and everything else that goes with it.  And if someone if fool hardy enough to try to attack, we need a system based on reactive prevention, not total prevention.  In other words, to shoot a missile down over the ocean, not prevent it from launching in the first place (obviously this would be different in nuclear situations).  Since when an enemy launches a missile, it is 100% an act of war, no questions, if they are "planning" to launch a missile, then they can deny it and call the evidence planted and annoying stuff like that.  Then you strike back (with small precision strike forces, like mentioned earlier).

Save money, save lives, what's not to like?

Healthcare

Healthcare reform in general is something that I strongly support.  Considering that pretty much anything can be done better (nothing is perfect after all), reform is always a potentially good thing (and always a potentially bad thing if done wrong).  But our healthcare is something that badly needs the reform.  As for governmental involvement, I strongly believe that it is the government's sole responsibility to ensure that all of its people have the basics for life (well, everyone shares that belief, we all just have different views on "basics of life"), and I feel that basic, preventative healthcare is needed (meaning checkups and doctor visits, and various example) and the benefits that it provides make it a great investment (cheaper and so saves money, reduces sick days at work so is beneficial to companies, and so to employees, cause missing work means missing pay), and if anyone wants to go above and beyond to get acute coverage or any additional coverage, they are more then welcome to get that from the free market.  It's just like a minimum wage (but for healthcare) everyone gets the basic minimum.

The government should also bring in actual doctors and nurses to write policy, since they know what is best, and not doctors that were doctors over a decade ago and moved on to do something else (like work for the insurance companies or become lobbyists), but those that are actual doctors now (or at least very recently) and know the patient needs of now.  Then, the government should bring in business people that can specialize in implementing those policies in the most cost effective and least bureaucratic way possible.

This would cover for the government's direct involvement in healthcare for people.  But there is still another aspect that needs to be dealt with, regulation of the private sector.  The insurance companies in the USA spend more money on lawsuits and lawyers then any other nation's insurance companies.  There is hundreds of billions of dollars wasted in tests that doctors know are pointless, but know that if they don't do them, they risk being sued.  The risk of being sued and the wasted money from the wasted tests, and wasted lawsuits restricts doctors from doing their jobs.  We have good samaritan laws that protect those that try to save others (if you save someone's life by performing CPR, they can't sue you if you accidentally break one of their ribs in the process), but these laws don't get extended to doctors, whose entire job is saving and helping others.

Healthcare reform, if done right, would not cost the american people any additional money, and would in fact, save money.  Since with preventative care, the overall cost goes down, and because you are replacing the service from the private sector (of preventative care, they still provide anything above and beyond) to the public sector, and not creating a new service, the cost to the people is not being increased just moving around.

Healthcare Bill

So I figured that I would start with this, as seeing the news that they've finally managed to agree to a date to vote on the bill (wow, and they consider that a major success, to agree to vote on it).  But lets start with this particular healthcare bill, then go into the government's role in healthcare in general.

But first, lets remember that this current bill in the senate is only one of two bills (there is also the bill in the house of reps) and once both are passed (in their respective houses) they will then be merged and reconciled and then voted on by both houses one last time before going to Obama.  So just because some features pass in the Senate bill doesn't mean that it will be in the final bill.

some of the key differences between the two bills are...

1) the Senate bill allows the states to opt out of the public option (so if a highly conservative state doesn't want to be in it, they don't have to, and a highly liberal state can if they want), the House bill does not have this opt out feature.

2) in regards to abortion, both bills prevent the use of federal funds to pay for abortion.  But the House bill requires that if you want an elective abortion, then you have to get alternative insurance altogether.  So if you want an abortion, not only will the house bill not cover the abortion, but they won't cover you at all afterwards.

3) Paying for the bill is another way the two bills differ greatly.  They all impose various taxes and fees, but each bill does different taxes on different things, and there are a multitude of different taxes.  For example, the house bill imposes a 2.5% tax on medical devices and ends some tax breaks for multinational companies.  The senate bill increases the payroll tax for Medicare (from 1.45% to 1.95%) on high income families (individuals making 200k and families making 250k).

Both bills pretty much only raise taxes on those making 200k a year or more, or imposing taxes for elective stuff (like a nose job or some cosmetic thing).

While there are some other differences between the two (such as mandates for individuals and companies), these are some of the bigger ones politically (not much stirs up political divide like, money, abortion, and the public option), and these will need to be reconciled before the final bill is voted on and sent to President Obama.

Some of the key features that both bills have (that would effect the people) is the public option.  Everyone would have an option of going through the government for healthcare.  Now we've seen the government fail miserably at time efficiency (DMV) and spectacularly succeed (DEQ), so this could really swing either way, hopefully if it becomes really bad, they'll scrap the model and design a better one.  Also, everyone would be required to have healthcare of some kind (be it through the government, your employer, or a private selection) this presents it's own pros and cons.  For one, those without health insurance still use the healthcare system and pass the bill onto others, making them have coverage will drive down the overall costs, however, it also takes away and option.  Right now, I can choose to not have coverage if I don't like the options, so if I think it is too expensive, I can say "screw you" and go without.  When you take away the "go without" option, it drives costs up, since the "go without" option is actually a competitor in the health insurance industry, and the government is taking away a competitor (though adding a competitor in the public option).

One thing that is not in either bill (and never was) is death panels.  These death panels (in the myth) were a bunch of number crunchers that would say whether your got to live or die, depending on your issue and how much it would cost to treat it.  The reality, like all insurance coverage, they rely on science to tell them what the best treatment if for a particular condition.  Like for severe burns, you may read somewhere on the internet that covering the body with a microfilm of gold plating is a sure fire way to cure the person, but your insurance company is not gonna fork over for some unproven treatment off the internet, when doctors know that a chemical induced coma while providing skin grafts is the best current solution.  But if you are confident enough to pay for it out of pocket, you can.  It is no different with a government public option then it is with the current insurance companies.  Both will have individuals making the determination of what will be and what will not be covered.  So if you think that the government is gonna have "death panels" then your current insurance provider already has an army of "death panels."

Another concern is with the "pork" which is the case in any bill that needs to be passed, people play politics and sell off votes for money to supporters or to their state or where ever.  If they can get money for their vote they will, even if they planned on voting that way anyway, many will hold out just for money.  This bill is no different.  However, thankfully, much of the pork is less pork and more bacon (meaning good, though still fattening).  Most of the earmarks are for medicaid for individual states, so at least it is money going to a relevant topic to healthcare, and not to some bridge to nowhere or more corn bio-diesel.  Now we shouldn't need to be doing this and the very act of selling your vote, in my opinion, is worth not getting re-elected, regardless of your stance on issues.

How it will be when it comes to a final vote is likely gonna be different, and I'll probably do another post when that final bill comes out.


http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BILLSUMMARY-071409.pdf
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-3200
http://dodd.senate.gov/multimedia/2009/BillText.pdf

Political Minority

In late 2007, Facebook did a poll for its members, asking them where they felt that they stood on the political spectrum (like this one) and gave them five possible answers.

government should have...
1) weak economic control and weak social control
2) strong economic control and weak social control
3) weak economic control and strong social control
4) strong economic control and strong social control
5) I don't know/I don't have an opinion.

On a political scale, these are roughly divided (note the word roughly, meaning not exactly) into libertarianism (#1), liberalism (#2), conservatism (#3), totalitarianism (#4), and politically agnostic (#5).

As you know, this was during a very political time frame and the facebook age group happened to be an age group that is more involved in politics now then it has been in decades. Of course, #1, #2, and #3 did the best, bringing in 92% of all the votes, however #4 was beaten out by #5. More people would claim "I don't know" then totalitarianism. Which isn't all surprising given the stigma attached to that label. Heck would could look at some groups in the past to see why it has earned that stigma, such as Nazi, Stalinism, Fascism, Socialism (real socialism, not the "socialism" that Europe has) and pretty much every dictator that has ever lived. Since that is a trait of being a dictator, holding all the power and not sharing any power or rights (since rights are a power).

But what statism is now (that section consisting of authortarianism and totalitarianism and a bunch of other bad -isms) is something much more humble and moderate. I believe (for I cannot honestly speak for others) that government has an important role in any nation for its people, a role that involves protecting the people both socially and economically. Not to tell people what they can and cannot do, but to try to find a comprimise that everyone can be happy with.

This is my first post in what will hopefully be a weekly thing (if not more often). The only thing I will tell you to think is to think for yourself. I will not tell you to see it my way and that I am right or that anyone is wrong. I will tell you what I think and feel and why I think and feel that way. Any political position that closes itself down and takes the mind set of "I don't need to know why they think that way, they are all wrong," is going to spell ruin in the future of this (or any) nation (IMO).

OreEle