Summary

• Objects (0 modified, 0 added, 1 removed)
  • Caselist.CitesClass[4]

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[4]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,90 +1,0 @@
1		-==Coal==
2		-
3		-
4		-
5		-====It is impossible to replace nuclear power with renewables – banning nuclear power would increase fossil fuel use and substantially increase global warming. ====
6		-**Bryce (a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute), 7/19 **
7		-Robert Bryce, 7-19-2016, "Democrats Ignore Inconvenient Math on Nuclear Power," National Review, http://www.nationalreview.com/article/438038/nuclear-power-necessary-green
8		-In 2015, America’s nuclear plants produced 839 terawatt-hours of electricity. (
9		-
10		-AND
11		-
12		-the State’s carbon emission reduction requirements as well as maintaining electric system reliability."
13		-
14		-
15		-
16		-**====Nuclear power plants will be replaced by fossil fuels, not renewables====**
17		-**Conca (a scientist in the field of environmental sciences for 33 years and a consulter for state environment agencies)**
18		-**16 **James Conca, 5-16-2016, "Natural Gas," Forbes, http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/05/16/natural-gas-is-replacing-nuclear-power-not-renewables/~~#2ec93cfc4abb
19		-Across some parts of the country, nuclear power plants have been closing amid political
20		-
21		-AND
22		-
23		-the obvious choice for new electricity generation in all regions of the country.
24		-
25		-
26		-
27		-====Countries will switch to fossil fuels – empirically proven in Germany. Kharecha and Hansen 2:====
28		-Pushker A. Kharecha and James E. Hansen. (Kharecha is a researcher at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Hansen is a researcher at Columbia University). "Response to Comment on "Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power". Environmental Science and Technology. May 22, 2013. SHSJW
29		-Sovacool et al. 1 begin their critique of our recently published paper 2 by
30		-
31		-AND
32		-
33		-due to the typically multidecadal lifetime of fossil fuel-fired power plants.
34		-
35		-
36		-
37		-====Prohibition of nuclear power leads to switch to coal – empirically shown in Australia.====
38		-**Heard 12**, Ben (Masters of Corporate Environmental Sustainability Management, Monash University, 2007, environmental activist, Director of ThinkClimate Consulting) December 12^^th^^ "That day in December: the story of nuclear prohibition in Australia" Decarbonise SA https://decarbonisesa.com/2012/09/12/that-day-in-december-the-story-of-nuclear-prohibition-in-australia/ SHSAM
39		-Since the prohibition of nuclear power, while nuclear build has taken off around the
40		-
41		-AND
42		-
43		-has driven greenhouse emissions from electricity production 18 higher since 1998 (Aus
44		-
45		-
46		-
47		-**====Coal plants pose greater health risks than nuclear plants – specifically harms marginalized communities that live near them====**
48		-**Hvistendahl 07 **Mara Hvistendahl, 12-13-2007, "Coal Ash Is More Radioactive Than Nuclear Waste," Scientific American, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/ (lots of scientific details in the non-underlined portions in case you’re curious)
49		-Over the past few decades, however, a series of studies has called these
50		-
51		-AND
52		-
53		-impact of such an event creates a stigma around the noncarbon power source.
54		-
55		-
56		-
57		-====Studies prove that a shift to coal means that 7 million people die. Kharecha and Hansen ‘13:====
58		-We calculate a mean value of 1.84 million human deaths prevented by world nuclear power production from 1971 to 2009 (see Figure 2a for full range), with an average of 76,000 prevented deaths/year from 2000 to 2009 (range 19 000−300 000). Estimates for the top five CO 2 emitters, along with full estimate ranges for all regions in our baseline historical scenario, are also shown in Figure 2a. For perspective, results for upper and lower bound scenarios are shown in Figure S1 (Supporting Information). In Germany, which has announced plans to shut down all reactors by 2022 (ref 2), we calculate that nuclear power has prevented an average of over 117 000 deaths from 1971 to 2009 (range 29 000−470 000). The large ranges stem directly from the ranges given in Table 1 for the mortality factors. Our estimated human deaths caused by nuclear power from 1971 to 2009 are far lower than the avoided deaths. Globally, we calculate 4900 such deaths, or about 370 times lower than our result for avoided deaths. Regionally, we calculate approximately 1800 deaths in OECD Europe, 1500 in the United States, 540 in Japan, 460 in Russia (includes all 15 former Soviet Union countries), 40 in China, and 20 in India. About 25 of these deaths are due to occupational accidents, and about 70 are due to air pollution-related effects (presumably fatal cancers from radiation fallout; see Table 2 of ref 16). However, empirical evidence indicates that the April 1986 Chernobyl accident was the world’s only source of fatalities from nuclear power plant radiation fallout. According to the latest assessment by the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), 43 deaths are conclusively attributable to radiation from Chernobyl as of 2006 (28 were plant staff/first responders and 15 were from the 6000 diagnosed cases of thyroid cancer). UNSCEAR 17 also states that reports of an increase in leukemia among recovery workers who received higher doses are inconclusive, although cataract development was clinically significant in that group; otherwise, for these workers as well as the general population, "there has been no persuasive evidence of any other health effect" attributable to radiation exposure. 17 Furthermore, no deaths have been conclusively attributed (in a scientifically valid manner) to radiation from the other two major accidents, namely, Three Mile Island in March 1979, for which a 20 year comprehensive scientific health assessment was done, 18 and the March 2011 Fukushima Daiichi accident. While it is too soon to meaningfully assess the health impacts of the latter accident, one early analysis indicates that annual radiation doses in nearby areas were much lower than the generally accepted 100 mSv threshold 17 for fatal disease development. In any case, our calculated value for global deaths caused by historical nuclear power (4900) could be a major overestimate relative to the empirical value (by 2 orders of magnitude). The absence of evidence of large mortality from past nuclear accidents is consistent with recent findings 20,21 that the "linear no-threshold" model used to derive the nuclear mortality factor in Table 1 (see ref 22) might not be valid for the relatively low radiation doses that the public was exposed to from nuclear power plant accidents. For the projection period 2010−2050, we find that, in the all coal case (see the Methods section), an average of 4.39 million and 7.04 million deaths are prevented globally by nuclear power production for the low-end and high-end projections of IAEA, 6 respectively. In the all gas case, an average of 420 000 and 680 000 deaths are prevented globally (see Figure 2b,c for full ranges). Regional results are also shown in Figure 2b,c. The Far East and North America have particularly high values, given that they are projected to be the biggest nuclear power producers (Figure S2, Supporting Information). As in the historical period, calculated deaths caused by nuclear power in our projection cases are far lower (2 orders of magnitude) than the avoided deaths, even taking the nuclear mortality factor in Table 1 at face value (despite the discrepancy with empirical data discussed above for the historical period).
59		-
60		-
61		-
62		-====Coal exacerbates warming====
63		-**TWC 14** ("Black as Coal", http://www.theworldcounts.com/stories/Coal-Mining-Effects-on-the-Environment)
64		-We were so happy with this cheap fuel source that we didn’t foresee or refused
65		-
66		-AND
67		-
68		-fish and plant life. Coal dust can cause respiratory problems in humans.
69		-
70		-
71		-
72		-====Warming would be catastrophic for our environment.====
73		-**Roberts 13 **(citing the World Bank Review’s compilation of climate studies)
74		-(David, "If you aren’t alarmed about climate, you aren’t paying attention" ~~http://grist.org/climate-energy/climate-alarmism-the-idea-is-surreal/~~ January 10 //mtc)
75		-We know we’ve raised global average temperatures around 0.8 degrees C so far
76		-
77		-AND
78		-
79		-, but a world that is inexorably more inhospitable with every passing decade.
80		-
81		-
82		-
83		-====Warming outweighs and turns all of their impacts====
84		-**Herzog 2016** - Citing a World Economic Forum Survey
85		-Katie, "Surprise, surprise: Climate change is risky business", Jan 14, grist.org/climate-energy/surprise-surprise-climate-change-is-risky-business/?utm'source=syndicationandutm'medium=rssandutm'campaign=feedgrist
86		-Congratulations, climate change! You’re officially the biggest threat to the most important thing
87		-
88		-AND
89		-
90		-going to take on that whole "mitigation and adaptation" thing?

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-2016-10-08 04:05:08.0

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-xx

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-xx

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-6

Round

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-5

Team

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Harker Shen Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Kelly Shen Coal DA

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Valley