Summary

• Objects (0 modified, 0 added, 1 removed)
  • Caselist.CitesClass[3]

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[3]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,66 +1,0 @@
1		-=AFF ITSELF=
2		-
3		-
4		-==Part 1: History ==
5		-We start our journey on March 28th 1979 Dauphin County, Pennsylvania : A reactor partially melts down and releases radioactive material into the surrounding areas in what is now known as the Three Mile Island Accident. 30 years after the atrocity, it is still called the worst meltdown in U.S history with effects felt to date. Cancer, violence, death. BUT no one knows that – the incident has gone down in infamy as one of the biggest streams of government lies to hide the horrid effects of a government sponsored initiative – nuclear power
6		-Wasserman, No Date (Harvey Wasserman has been writing about atomic energy and the green alternatives since 1973. His 1982 assertion to Bryant Gumbel on NBC's TODAY Show that people were killed at TMI sparked a national mailing from the reactor industry demanding a retraction. NBC was later bought by General Electric, still a major force pushing atomic power.  , "People Died at Three Mile Island," No Publication, http://www.nukefree.org/news/peoplediedatthreemileisland No date) AP
7		-
8		-As news of the accident poured into the global media, the public was assured there were no radiation releases.That quickly proved to be false.The public was then told the releases were controlled and done purposely to alleviate pressure on the core. Both those assertions were false. The public was told the releases were "insignificant."But stack monitors were saturated and unusable, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission later told Congress it did not know—-and STILL does not know—-how much radiation was released at Three Mile Island, or where it went. Using unsubstantiated estimates of how much radiation was released, the government issued average doses allegedly received by people in the region, which it assured the public were safe. But the estimates were utterly meaningless, among other things ignoring the likelihood that high doses of concentrated fallout could come down heavily on specific areas. Official estimates said a uniform dose to all persons in the region was equivalent to a single chest x-ray. But pregnant women are no longer x-rayed because it has long been known a single dose can do catastrophic damage to an embryo or fetus in utero. The public was told there was no melting of fuel inside the core.But robotic cameras later showed a very substantial portion of the fuel did melt.The public was told there was no danger of an explosion. But there was, as there had been at Michigan's Fermi reactor in 1966. In 1986, Chernobyl Unit Four did explode.The public was told there was no need to evacuate anyone from the area. But Pennsylvania Governor Richard Thornburgh then evacuated pregnant women and small children. Unfortunately, many were sent to nearby Hershey, which was showered with fallout.In fact, the entire region should have been immediately evacuated. It is standard wisdom in the health physics community that—-due in part to the extreme vulnerability of human embryos, fetuses and small children, as well as the weaknesses of old age—-there is no safe dose of radiation, and none will ever be found. The public was assured the government would follow up with meticulous studies of the health impacts of the accident.In fact, the state of Pennsylvania hid the health impacts, including deletion of cancers from the public record, abolition of the state's tumor registry, misrepresentation of the impacts it could not hide (including an apparent tripling of the infant death rate in nearby Harrisburg) and much more.The federal government did nothing to track the health histories of the region's residents.
9		-
10		-Three mile resulted in an increase of infant mortality, cancer rates, psychological and physical effects that lasted long after the initial explosion.
11		-Epstein 11 , Eric Epstei, Mr. Epstein is the Chairman of Three Mile Island Alert,, "Health Studies," Three Mile Island Alert, http://www.tmia.com/taxonomy/term/12, 10-27-2011)AP
12		-
13		-Penn State Professor Winston Richards reported, "Infant mortality for Dauphin County, while average in 1978, becomes significantly above average in 1980." 8. 1984: The first Voluntary Community Health Study was undertaken by a group of local residents trained by Marjorie Aamodt. That study found a 600 percent cancer death rate increase for three locations on the west shore of TMI directly in the plumes' pathway. The data were independently verified by experts from the TMI Public Health Fund. 1985: Jane Lee surveyed 409 families living in a housing development five miles from TMI. Lee documented 23 cancer deaths, 45 cancer incidences, 53 benign tumors, 31 miscarriages, stillbirths and deformities, and 204 cases of respiratory problems.By 1985, TMI’s owners and builders had paid more than $14 million for out-of-court settlements of personal injury lawsuits including $12.250 million paid to 280 plaintiffs and Orphans Court Cases. August, 1985: Marc Sheaffer, a psychologist at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, released a study linking TMI-related stress with immunity impairments. August, 1987: Prof. James Rooney and Prof. Sandy Prince of Embury of Penn State University-Harrisburg reported that "chronically elevated levels of psychological stress" have existed among Middletown residents since the Accident.April, 1988: Andrew Baum, professor of medical psychology at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda discussed the results of his research on TMI residents in Psychology Today. "When we compared groups of people living near Three Mile Island with a similar group elsewhere, we found that the Three Mile Island group reported more physical complaints, such as headaches and back pain, as well as more anxiety and depression. We also uncovered long- term changes in levels of hormones...These hormones affect various bodily functions, including muscle tension, cardiovascular activity, overall metabolic and immune-system function..."
14		-James Fenwick, a researcher at Millersville University, found statistically significant increases of kidney, renal, pelvis and ovarian cancer in women. (April, 1998) June, 1991: Columbia University’s Health Study (Susser-Hatch) published results of their findings in the American Journal of Public Health. The study actually shows a more than doubling of all observed cancers after the accident at TMI-2, including: lymphoma, leukemia, colon and the hormonal category of breast, endometrium, ovary, prostate and testis. For leukemia and lung cancers in the six to 12 km distance, the number observed was almost four times greater. In the 0-six km range, colon cancer was four times greater. The study found "a statistically significant relationship between incidence rates after the accident and residential proximity to the plant."
15		-
16		-
17		-====The effects lasted long into the public memory with the government learned from the Three Mile Incident, not building new reactors since the 80’s until they could find the place that would have the least amount effects on its "citizens." – They learned WHERE to place these horrible reactors and who to exploit for their own gain====
18		-Cousins et. Al no date (Elicia Cousins, Claire Karban, Fay Li, and Marianna Zapanta Carleton College, Environmental Studies Comprehensive Project Northfield, MN, USA, "Nuclear Power and Environmental Justice: A Mixed-Methods Study of Risk, Vulnerability, and the Victim Experience, No date, "https://apps.carleton.edu/curricular/ents/assets/Cousins'Karban'Li'Zapanta.pdf, Carleton Environmental Studies,)AP
19		-We begin with an analysis of the spatial distribution of nuclear power plants in the Eastern United States, concluding that nuclear reactors are indeed situated in areas with high proportions of certain vulnerable populations (non-white Hispanics, women, children and the elderly). Furthermore, the only nuclear facility that has been sited after the Three Mile Island accident of 1979 is situated in an area with a disproportionately large population of African Americans and people below the poverty line. We then illustrate what this physical proximity would mean in the case of an accident by exploring the victim experiences of the three main nuclear power plant accidents in history: Fukushima Daiichi, Chernobyl, and Three Mile Island (TMI). In doing so, we highlight some of the most profound social risks associated with nuclear power that are often overlooked, largely because of difficulties in quantifying and addressing them. Well-documented patterns of social vulnerability in the United States suggest that the most disadvantaged populations would likely experience these costs to a greater extent in the case of an accident.
20		-Cousins et. Al continues (Elicia Cousins, Claire Karban, Fay Li, and Marianna Zapanta Carleton College, Environmental Studies Comprehensive Project Northfield, MN, USA, "Nuclear Power and Environmental Justice: A Mixed-Methods Study of Risk, Vulnerability, and the Victim Experience, No date, "https://apps.carleton.edu/curricular/ents/assets/Cousins'Karban'Li'Zapanta.pdf, Carleton Environmental Studies,)AP
21		-All of the reactors currently in operation were commissioned before the Three Mile Island incident in 1979. The high cost of reactors and the infrastructure and spent fuel that accompany them make it unrealistic that environmental injustice in plant siting could be addressed at an existing plant. Newly sited plants however, have an opportunity to consider the surrounding populations in an environmental justice context. Recently, the NRC approved the siting of two new nuclear reactors for the first time since 1980. The plants are currently under construction in Waynesboro, Georgia at the existing Vogtle nuclear power plant (Peskoe 2012). We isolated the data for this particular facility to examine the surrounding population using the same methodology.
22		-
23		-==Part 2: Wasteland==
24		-Our journey takes us to September 2016
25		- Burke County, Georgia – site of the Vogtle nuclear plant
26		-
27		-====Black bodies live in a world of nuclear waste, constantly tormenting their every day lives – lives full of cancer, death, pitiful living conditions – nothing has changed – nothing positive was learned from the 3-mile incident- black bodies are still represented as fungible- their demands for change- unheard- their lives invisible to the eyes of the government ====
28		- Dixon 12 Environmental racism: Is nuclear plant causing cancer for poor black residents of Shell Bluff, Ga.?http://thegrio.com/2012/01/25/nuclear-plants-and-cancer-epidemics-in-a-poor-black-georgia-town-environmental-racism-in-the-21st-ce/
29		-Environmental racism occurs when hazardous industries and facilities are placed in and near poor, minority communities. Because the resultant pollution from such installations is a cost usually paid by the immediate environment and community affected, the fall out of environmental racism is the localization of those costs in areas with the least political clout. In 2010, President Obama supported the Department of Energy’s decision to grant $8.3 billion in conditional loan guarantees for the construction of twin nuclear reactors in Burke County, Ga. at the Vogtle plant. According to Southern Company (which is building the reactors), the creation of the nation’s first new nuclear reactors in 30 years will result in an emissions-free, jobs-creating bonanza for the poor and mostly black communities around Shell Bluff and other Burke County cities. But some residents are asking, if nuclear reactors are really economic shots in the arm, why is Burke County still one of the poorest corners of the state a quarter century after Southern Company brought its first pair of local reactors online in 1987? They also want to know: If the old and new reactors will be safe, why won’t Southern Company or the federal government pay to monitor radiation levels in Burke County? And most of all, why are cancer rates more than 50 percent higher in communities near existing reactors, according to the Centers for Disease Control? Trading clean energy and jobs for the health of poor black citizens without investigating the long-term effects fits the definition of environmental racism precisely. "Some people did get jobs," former Shell Bluff resident Annie Laura Stephens told the Grio, "but a lot of us got something else. We got cancer. I lost sisters, brothers and cousins to cancer, and every family I know has lost somebody to cancer." Ms. Stephens’ complaint is echoed by many local residents. Since the early 1980s, Burke County residents have experienced a veritable cancer epidemic. Located along what is already the fourth most toxic waterway in the nation, Shell Bluff is across the Savannah River from a former nuclear weapons manufacturing plant. Nearby Waynesboro residents rely on wells for bathing and drinking water, which makes them highly vulnerable to the radioactive contamination of local ground water. With the two existing reactors at Vogtle, in addition to the former weapons plant (which is a Superfund toxic site), when the new reactors are completed the number of potential sources of nuclear contamination in tiny Burke county will rise to five. But no one is closely monitoring their effects on residents. This has left Shell Bluff residents to rely on anecdotal evidence "We don’t have the best educations, but we can read and we can count," continues Stephens regarding her observations. "We know that since 2004 there has been no testing of our water, soil or air for radiation. We drink the water, we bathe in it and wash dishes and clothes in it. We know every family has cancer… and that can’t be normal, that can’t be right. We know way too many are sick with cancer and we know why. But we can’t prove it absolutely, because nobody will test the local air or water or anything else for the radiation we know is there.
30		-
31		-
32		-====Due to fungibility the voices of the black body are never heard – this space is key ====
33		-Dixon 12 Environmental racism: Is nuclear plant causing cancer for poor black residents of Shell Bluff, Ga.?http://thegrio.com/2012/01/25/nuclear-plants-and-cancer-epidemics-in-a-poor-black-georgia-town-environmental-racism-in-the-21st-ce/
34		-"We’ve had meetings and protests and lots of promises and more meetings," Stephens said. "But it seems that nobody is listening, but Jesus." At the end of 2003, when federal funding for radiation monitoring was slated to end in the area, Georgia WAND (Womens Action for New Directions) and local residents began pushing for the Department of Energy to resume radiation monitoring around the two existing nuclear plants at Shell Bluff. They met with state officials and members of Congress over several years, but got no results. Then in 2010, WAND discovered that the DOE had falsely reported to Congress that funds has been provided to Georgia for radiation monitoring since 2004. In fact the state had received no money for this purpose since 2003. After CNN investigated these circumstances at Shell Bluff and aired an April 2010 report on the cancer epidemic, federal officials pledged to reinstate funds for radiation monitoring in the area. But by August of that year, DOE was refusing to fund any proposal for this work. Since then, according to WAND director Bobbie Paul, federal officials and their contractors have stalled and made empty promises about restoring the funds. In the meantime, Southern Company has implemented plans for the two new nuclear reactors. "The NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) just approved construction permits for two new reactors right next to the old ones," lamented Rev. Willy Tomlin, also of Shell Bluff. "They are making billions off us, but can’t spare a nickel to tell us why our cancer rates are higher than everybody else’s, or even to count them. A lot of people are scared. They see we’ve been having meetings and fighting this for a long while now. They see we haven’t won yet. "Georgia Power is (the source of) a lot of the few jobs in this area, and people don’t want to jeopardize the little they have," Tomlin continued. "If you speak out, you can lose your job, or your relatives can lose theirs. It happens." Southern Company is the parent company of Georgia Power. "Many people really are resigned to the cancer as the price they have to pay to keep living here," Paul confirmed. The manipulation of the local population into accepting the terms presented by Southern Company to keep their jobs goes further. In early January 2012, WAND and Shell Bluff residents invited Rev. Dr. Joseph Lowery of the Georgia Coalition for the Peoples Agenda to Shell Bluff to hear the concerns of residents, and preach about the power of voting. Dr. Lowery, a former president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), confided to meeting participants that he had met with a representative from Southern Company. He did not mention that the SCLC, which he headed until 1997, has a special relationship with Georgia Power. A former Georgia Power CEO has headed a SCLC $3 million building fund drive. Empty public meetings. Many broken promises. Bribing black communities with jobs in exchange for sickness and death. Is this what environmental racism looks like in the 21st century? The Grio asked Ms. Stephens why the election of a black president hasn’t protected the mostly black residents of Shell Bluff Georgia from such circumstances. Stephens answered: "We all vote. We have meetings and more meetings in between the elections. People are still getting sick and dying of cancer. This has been going on a long time. Right now, they ~~,Southern Company,~~ have the power." According to CNN, the NRC and Southern Company have stated that the plants in Burke County are safe. It is the Nuclear Regulatory Commission policy to allow plants to monitor themselves. Atlanta Progressive News reports that the energy generated by the new reactors will not benefit Georgia residents, because it will be sold to Florida.’
35		-
36		-
37		-====The impact to that fungibility is irreversible. Nuclear plants are responsible for devastating effects of displacement, contamination and distraction. Nuclear spaces become war zones in and of themselves, enacting violence through illness, war, poverty, death, and more, creating and unpredictable risk.====
38		-**Taylor 2010** (Bryan Taylor, "Radioactive History Rhetoric, Memory, and Place in the Post–Cold War nuclear Museum" in Places of Public Memory, pg.59)
39		-To understand the rhetorical nature of these spaces, we must remember that nuclear weapons are capable of producing "effects" whether or not they are actually used as military weapons. That is, they are technological artifacts whose production requires the reconfiguration of space to serve military, scientific, and industrial goals. This process involves highly consequential— and often irreversible—material practices, including the appropriation, condemnation, and clearing of land; the exposure, displacement, and relocation of indigenous populations; the contamination and devastation of existing ecosystems; and the construction of facilities requiring significant reallocation of water and energy resources. The massive artificiality of this process is neatly captured by environmental historian Hal Rothman in his image of the wartime Los Alamos Laboratory as "cantilevered" and "grafted" onto the existing culture and environment of northern new Mexico.6 Mounting—and highly controversial—evidence has established that the nuclear industrialization of these spaces has created destructive and extremely long-lasting consequences for public health, worker safety, and the environment (for example, stemming from the release of radioactive materials into groundwater).7 This evidence concerns the impossibility of "containing" the effects of nuclear weapons events. Instead, those effects evade control and circulate unpredictably within and across local communities, regions, and nations. The environmentalist colloquialism "Every- thing is connected" concisely expresses the sad wisdom arising from this ontological rupture. It suggests how nuclear spaces can be charged with both the ominous aura of illness, war, and death, and also with the material traces of production operations. While both sets of phenomena may create a sense of dread for inhabitants and visitors, the latter also creates unpredictable risk for their bodies.
40		-
41		-
42		-
43		-
44		-==Part 3: Memory Space ==
45		-
46		-====Three Mile and Burke County Georgia reflect the long and contested history of nuclear power production in this country. We must use these sites as memory places in order to understand the effects on populations of environmental degradation, and to challenge the militarized power that displaces and subjects black and brown communities to health crises. The nuclear power plant is symbolic of militarized control over certain bodies and embracing these sites as a memory space unmasks and unmakes those system of power.====
47		-Blair, Dickson, and Ott 2010 (Introduction Rhetoric/Memory/Place; Places of Public Memory, pg.30)
48		-
49		-Finally, memory places themselves have histories. That is, they do not just represent the past. They accrete their own pasts. Virtually all studies of public memory places take account of the connections memory places draw between past and present. But James Loewen argues that these places actually are marked by three temporal moments, not just two. He suggests that "One is its manifest narrative—the event or person heralded in its text or artwork." The second, he argues, is "the story of its erection or preservation. The images on our monuments and the language on our markers reflect the attitudes and ideas of the time when Americans put them up, often many years after the event." And finally, he identities a "third age that comes into play whenever one visits a historic site—the visitor’s own era."129
50		-
51		-
52		-====Thus I advocate the turn of Three Mile and Burke County Georgia into "Memory Spaces" as a means for countries to prohibit the production of nuclear power.====
53		-
54		-====
55		-The memory place does not just represent the pasts, it accretes it and draws connections from past to present. It shapes our way of being, unmasking and unmaking systems of power that subjects particular citizens to environmental degradation, and health crises.====
56		-
57		-Blair, Dickson, and Ott 2010 (Introduction Rhetoric/Memory/Place; Places of Public Memory, pg.29)
58		-Places also mobilize power because they are implacably material. They act directly on the body in ways that may reinforce or subvert their symbolic memory contents. Places of memory are composed of and/or contain objects, such as art installations, memorabilia, and historic artifacts. Their rhetoricity is not limited to the readable or visible; it engages the full sensorium. Such objects produce particular sensations through touch, sound, sight, smell, and taste. Memory places also prescribe particular paths of entry, traversal, and exit. Maps, arrows, walls, boundaries, openings, doors, modes of surveillance all encode power and possibility. The design and building of memorial places often function as "strategy" in Michel de Cetteau’s sense of that word. At the same time, the uses to which the visitors put memorial sites make, remake, and unmake the imposed structures of power.127 The important point is that, no matter how overtly a place may exert power through its incorporation, enablement, direction, and constraints on bodies, it has its own power dimension that becomes part of the experience.
59		-
60		-
61		-====The debate space is uniquely key –our rhetoric impacts those in the room with us and create a memory space for this specific round-IN a world where there is never a memory of the harms against the black body- Memory Spaces are uniquely key to contesting nuclear power AND REFRAME ALL STATE POLICIES ARE VIEWED. THUS THE ROLE OF THE BALLOT IS TO VOTE FOR THE DEBATER THAT BEST CREATES A MEMORY SPACE that resists a power structures====
62		-
63		-====Museums and public memory force an immediate confrontation with the visitor to where they must deal with not just the past but the present effects of nuclear power. The phenomena of the nuclear place restores a sense of connection between audiences both socially and internationally. ====
64		-
65		-**Taylor 2010** (Bryan Taylor, "Radioactive History Rhetoric, Memory, and Place in the Post–Cold War nuclear Museum" in Places of Public Memory, pg.67)
66		-The marginalized interests of these groups evoke alternate rhetorical frames that reorient museum visitors to the phenomena of nuclear place. Potentially, these frames can restore a spatial sense of connection—and perhaps identification—between audiences in the United States and other social groups and life forms, including U.S. citizens affected by radioactive fallout from weapons testing,30 nations seeking to develop their own nuclear weapons programs, and migrating species that spread radioactive contamination. These frames suggest that it is neither accurate nor sustainable for museum audiences to relegate the consequences of nuclear weapons development to the past, or to safely remote spaces. instead, their rhetoric inconveniently restores the phenomena of nuclear weapons production to local and regional sites that may be uncomfortably familiar to those audiences.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-2016-09-17 17:33:31.0

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Jared Woods

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Harrison RP

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-3

Round

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

Team

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Southlake Carroll Patel Aff

Title

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-SEPOCT-1AC Memory Space

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Greenhill