Changes for page West Nelson Neg

Last modified by Administrator on 2017/08/29 03:41

From version 1.1 >
edited by Kenneth Nelson
on 2016/09/17 04:10
To version < 11.1 >
edited by Kenneth Nelson
on 2016/10/28 20:16
>
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[0]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,45 @@
1 +Shift DA
2 +Nuclear power phase out means a shift to gas and coal – proven by Japan. Baum 15
3 +Seth Baum Executive Director of the Global Catastrophic Risk Institute; Ph.D., Geography, Pennsylvania State University; M.S., Electrical Engineering, Northeastern University, October 20, 2015, "Japan should restart more nuclear power plants," Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, http://thebulletin.org/japan-should-restart-more-nuclear-power-plants8817. Credits: Greenhill SK
4 +Turning off nuclear power requires either turning on another power source, or using less electricity. Japan has done both. Its total energy consumption is down 10 percent since 2010 due to the nuclear phase-out, but use of natural gas, a source of greenhouse gas emissions, is up 19 percent, and use of coal, which is even more harmful to the environment, is up 2 percent. (The data is available here.) Japan is now building 45 new coal power plants, but if it turned its nuclear power plants back on (except of course for the damaged Fukushima facilities), it could cut coal consumption in half. And coal poses more health and climate change dangers than nuclear power.
5 +We control empirics. Nordhaus 16
6 +Ted Nordhaus Founder and Chairman of the Breakthrough Institute, an Environmental Policy Think Tank, BA in History from the University of California, initiatives for the Public Interest Research Groups, the Sierra Club, Environmental Defense, and Clean Water Action, 7-15-2016, "Without nuke power, climate change threat grows: Column," USA TODAY, http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/07/15/nuclear-diablo-canyon-plant-closing-energy-power-california-environmentalists-column/87090886/. West KN
7 +That’s consistent with past closures of nuclear power stations. When nuclear plants close, one can reliably count on them being substantially replaced by fossil fuels. This was the case when California closed the San Onofre nuclear power station in 2012, when Japan shuttered its nuclear fleet after Fukushima, and in Germany, which despite spending hundreds of billions of dollars over the last decade to replace its nuclear power fleet with renewable energy, announced last month that it was reneging on its commitment to phase out its large fleet of coal-fired power stations because it can’t keep the lights on without them.
8 +Two Impacts:
9 +1 Nuclear power has prevented massive amounts of death as compared to coal and gas. Hansen and Kharecha 13
10 +James Hansen, PhD in Physics from the University of Iowa; Currently works at the Earth Institute as a Professor at Columbia University, Pushker Kharecha, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies; Researcher at Columbia in Earth Science; PhD’s in Geosciences and Astrobiology, " Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power" Environmental Science and Technology, http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2013/2013_Kharecha_kh05000e.pdf, March 13, 2013. West KN
11 +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 CO2 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),(17) 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(19) 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).
12 +Err neg on this question: The impacts are underestimated – coal is more likely than gas to be substituted – multiple warrants. Hansen and Kharecha 13
13 +James Hansen, PhD in Physics from the University of Iowa; Currently works at the Earth Institute as a Professor at Columbia University, Pushker Kharecha, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies; Researcher at Columbia in Earth Science; PhD’s in Geosciences and Astrobiology, " Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power" Environmental Science and Technology, http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2013/2013_Kharecha_kh05000e.pdf, March 13, 2013. West KN
14 +On the other hand, if coal would not have been as dominant a replacement for nuclear as assumed in our baseline historical scenario, then our avoided historical impacts could be overestimates, since coal causes much larger impacts than gas (Table 1). However, there are several reasons this is unlikely. Key characteristics of coal plants (e.g., plant capacity, capacity factor, and total production costs) are historically much more similar to nuclear plants than are those of natural gas plants.13 Also, the vast majority of existing nuclear plants were built before 1990, but advanced gas plants that would be suitable replacements for base-load nuclear plants (i.e., combined-cycle gas turbines) have only become available since the early 1990s.13 Furthermore, coal resources are highly abundant and widespread,24,25 and coal fuel and total production costs have long been relatively low, unlike historically available gas resources and production costs.13 Thus, it is not surprising that coal has been by far the dominant source of global electricity thus far (Figure 1). We therefore assess that our baseline historical replacement scenario is plausible and that it is not as significant an uncertainty source as the impact factors; that is, our avoided historical impacts are more likely underestimates, as discussed in the above paragraph.
15 +Coal O/W
16 +Coal is comparatively worse for death and health – it is constant exposure vs temporary exposure. Baum 15
17 +Seth Baum Executive Director of the Global Catastrophic Risk Institute; Ph.D., Geography, Pennsylvania State University; M.S., Electrical Engineering, Northeastern University, October 20, 2015, "Japan should restart more nuclear power plants," Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, http://thebulletin.org/japan-should-restart-more-nuclear-power-plants8817. Credits: Greenhill SK
18 +The primary harm caused by nuclear accidents is increased cancer risk from released radiation. But the radiation levels from Fukushima are so low that the cancer increase will be barely noticeable, and may not happen at all. To be sure, the radiation exposure would have been worse if the prevailing winds did not blow most of the radiation out to the Pacific. But as with the Chernobyl catastrophe in 1986, the Fukushima disaster caused more harm from overreaction to the radiation than from radiation itself. That’s partly because excessive evacuations can cause more deaths than they prevent. The anti-radiation stigma also levied a psychological toll, with some healthy people committing suicide. In Chernobyl, as many as 100,000 unnecessary abortions may have been performed due to fears of radiation’s impact. Another nuclear power plant accident in the near future is, moreover, extremely unlikely. It is normal to pay attention to disasters that are fresh in our memory and overestimate the risk of another; psychologists call this the recency effect. But nuclear plant accidents do not come in bunches. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the Fukushima accident is only the second Level 7 major accident in nuclear power history, the first being the Chernobyl disaster 29 years ago. If anything, we should expect the probability of another accident in Japan to be smaller now because so many people are paying attention to the plants and the institutions overseeing them. Meanwhile, coal plants also damage human health, through asthma, bronchitis, cancer, and other illnesses. The difference is that nuclear plants only harm health following rare accidents, whereas working coal plants do so all the time. So by switching from nuclear to coal, Japan is rejecting a small chance of increased cancer in favor of a guaranteed increase in cancer and other maladies. In fact, one study found that coal causes 387 times more deaths per unit of energy than nuclear power. Since coal is also more expensive for Japan (as even critics of the nuclear restart have pointed out), restarting the nuclear plants appears to be very much in the country’s national interest.
19 +Desal DA:
20 +Nuclear power k2 stable desalinization IAEA 15
21 +~-~- widely known as the world's "Atoms for Peace" organization within the United Nations family. Set up in 1957 as the world's centre for cooperation in the nuclear field, the Agency works with its Member States and multiple partners worldwide to promote the safe, secure and peaceful use of nuclear technologies, “New Technologies for Seawater Desalination Using Nuclear Energy,” IEAE TecDoc Series, 2015 Premier
22 +It is anticipated that by 2025, 33 of the world population, or more than 1.8 billion people, will live in countries or regions without adequate supplies of water unless new desalination plants become operational. In many areas, the rate of water usage already exceeds the rate of replenishment. Nuclear reactors have already been used for desalination on relatively small-scale projects. In total, more than 150 reactor-years of operating experience with nuclear desalination has been accumulated worldwide. Eight nuclear reactors coupled to desalination projects are currently in operation in Japan. India commissioned the ND demonstration project in the year 2008 and the plant has been in continuous operation supplying demineralised (DM) quality water to the nuclear power plant and potable quality to the reservoir. Pakistan has launched a similar project in 2010. However, the great majority of the more than 7500 desalination plants in operation worldwide today use fossil fuels with the attendant emission of carbon dioxide and other GHG. Increasing the use of fossil fuels for energy-intensive processes such as large-scale desalination plants is not a sustainable long-term option in view of the associated environmental impacts. Thus, the main energy sources for future desalination are nuclear power reactors and renewable energy sources such as solar, hydro, or wind, but only nuclear reactors are capable of delivering the copious quantities of energy required for large-scale desalination projects. Algeria is participating in an IAEA’s CRP in the subject related to “New technologies for seawater desalination using nuclear energy’’ with a project entitled “Optimization of coupling nuclear reactors and desalination systems for an Algerian site Skikda”. This project is a contribution to the IAEA CRP to enrich the economic data corresponding to the choice of technical and economical options for coupling nuclear reactors and desalination systems for specific sites in the Mediterranean region
23 +Only solution to water shortages IAEA 2
24 +~-~- widely known as the world's "Atoms for Peace" organization within the United Nations family. Set up in 1957 as the world's centre for cooperation in the nuclear field, the Agency works with its Member States and multiple partners worldwide to promote the safe, secure and peaceful use of nuclear technologies, “New Technologies for Seawater Desalination Using Nuclear Energy,” IEAE TecDoc Series, 2015 Premier
25 +Addressing water shortages is a difficult challenge for many countries due to population growth and the increasing need for water to support industry, agriculture and urban development. Innovative water management strategies are certainly needed to preserve water resources. But they may not be sufficient. Throughout the world, many highly populated regions face frequent and prolonged droughts. In these areas, where, for some reason, the natural hydrologic cycle cannot provide people with water, desalination is used to provide people with potable water. Desalination systems fall into two main design categories, namely thermal and membrane types. Thermal designs –including MSF and MED- use flashing and evaporation to produce potable water while membrane designs use the method of RO. Desalination is the main technology being used to augment fresh water resources in water scarce coastal regions. With almost 64.4 million m3 /day (GWI 2012) of worldwide desalination water production capacity, about two third is produced by thermal distillation, mainly in the Middle East. Outside this region, membrane-based systems predominate. Both processes are energy-intensive (Fig. I-1.). Even if power consumption has been reduced as technological innovations, such as energy recovery systems and variable frequency pumps (reverse RO plants), are introduced, it remains the main cost factor in water desalination. Traditionally, fossil fuels such as oil and gas have been the major energy sources. However, fuel price hikes and volatility as well as concerns about long term supplies and environmental release is prompting consideration of alternative energy sources for seawater desalination, such as nuclear desalination and the use of renewable energy sources. Replacing fossil fuel by renewable (solar, wind, geothermal, biomass) or nuclear energy, could reduce the impacts on air quality and climate. FIG. I-1. Typical energy consumption of technologically mature desalination processes. The idea of using nuclear energy to desalinate seawater is not new. Since the USS nautilus was commissioned more than a half century ago, the drinking water on nuclear submarines has come from reactor-powered desalination systems. Today, nuclear desalination is being 106 used by a number of countries, including India and Japan, to provide fresh water for growing populations and irrigation. Commercial uses are also being considered in Europe, the Middle East and South America. The IAEA has always been an important contributor to the RandD effort in nuclear desalination. In 2009, it launched a coordinated research programme entitled “New Technologies for Seawater Desalination using Nuclear Energy”, focusing on the introduction of innovative nuclear desalination technologies, producing desalted water at the lowest possible cost and in a sustainable manner. The French atomic and alternative energies commission (CEA) expressed interest in participating to the CRP. A research proposal, aiming at using CEA software tools to develop optimized nuclear desalination systems was established and submitted to the IAEA. The studies focused on the development of optimized nuclear desalination systems producing large amounts of desalinated water while minimizing the impact on the efficiency of power conversion. Technologically mature desalination processes viz. MEE and RO have been considered for the study. Each of these systems will be modelled using innovative techniques developed in CEA. Models would first be validated (against experimental results published in literature, or obtained through bilateral collaborations involving CEA) and then applied to optimize the energy use in the integrated power and water plants.
26 +Empirics prove water shortages are an impact multiplier and increase war. Maddocks et al. 15
27 +8-26-2015, "Ranking the World’s Most Water-Stressed Countries in 2040,"World Resource Institute, http://www.wri.org/blog/2015/08/ranking-worldE28099s-most-water-stressed-countries-2040 . Andrew Maddocks Previously worked in journalism and communications, has reported on global water, food, and energy issues for Circle of Blue, co-managed research, proposals, and outreach at the Woodrow Wilson Center, researched journalism ethics for NPR’s ombudsman, holds a B.A. in conflict studies from DePauw University in Greencastle, Ind., Paul Reig Associate with the Water Program and Business Center, worked in apparel sectors on water risk assessments, published author quoted in mainstream and specialist media on the topics of corporate water risk and stewardship, Quoted in The Financial Times, CNN, the Guardian, Fortune, LA Times, The Oil and Gas Journal, MS in Water Resource Management from McGill University, BS in Environmental and Agricultural Biology from the University of Navarra, Robert Samuel Young Interned at George Mason University, performing research into computational protein engineering for use in biofuel production, worked for the Friends of Hidden Oaks Nature Center, founded a non-profit STEM education organization called Project BEST, working toward a B.S. in Electrical Engineering at Stanford University, to be completed in 2018, was an intern at WRI.
28 +
29 +Fourteen of the 33 likely most water stressed countries in 2040 are in the Middle East, including nine considered extremely highly stressed with a score of 5.0 out of 5.0: Bahrain, Kuwait, Palestine, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Oman and Lebanon. The region, already arguably the least water-secure in the world, draws heavily upon groundwater and desalinated sea water, and faces exceptional water-related challenges for the foreseeable future. With regional violence and political turmoil commanding global attention, water may seem tangential. However, drought and water shortages in Syria likely contributed to the unrest that stoked the country’s 2011 civil war. Dwindling water resources and chronic mismanagement forced 1.5 million people, primarily farmers and herders, to lose their livelihoods and leave their land, move to urban areas, and magnify Syria’s general destabilization. The problem extends to other countries. Water is a significant dimension of the decades-old conflict between Palestine and Israel. Saudi Arabia’s government said its people will depend entirely on grain imports by 2016, a change from decades of growing all they need, due to fear of water-resource depletion. The U.S. National Intelligence Council wrote that water problems will put key North African and Middle Eastern countries at greater risk of instability and state failure and distract them from foreign policy engagements with the U.S.
30 +Water crises cause escalating global conflict.
31 +Rasmussen 11 (Erik, CEO, Monday Morning; Founder, Green Growth Leaders) “Prepare for the Next Conflict: Water Wars” HuffPo 4/12
32 +For years experts have set out warnings of how the earth will be affected by the water crises, with millions dying and increasing conflicts over dwindling resources. They have proclaimed ~-~- in line with the report from the US Senate ~-~- that the water scarcity is a security issue, and that it will yield political stress with a risk of international water wars. This has been reflected in the oft-repeated observation that water will likely replace oil as a future cause of war between nations. Today the first glimpses of the coming water wars are emerging. Many countries in the Middle East, Africa, Central and South Asia ~-~- e.g. Afghanistan, Pakistan, China, Kenya, Egypt, and India ~-~- are already feeling the direct consequences of the water scarcity ~-~- with the competition for water leading to social unrest, conflict and migration. This month the escalating concerns about the possibility of water wars triggered calls by Zafar Adeel, chair of UN-Water, for the UN to promote "hydro-diplomacy" in the Middle East and North Africa in order to avoid or at least manage emerging tensions over access to water. The gloomy outlook of our global fresh water resources points in the direction that the current conflicts and instability in these countries are only glimpses of the water wars expected to unfold in the future. Thus we need to address the water crisis that can quickly escalate and become a great humanitarian crisis and also a global safety problem. A revolution The current effort is nowhere near what is needed to deal with the water-challenge ~-~- the world community has yet to find the solutions. Even though the 'water issue' is moving further up the agenda all over the globe: the US foreign assistance is investing massively in activities that promote water security, the European Commission is planning to present a "Blueprint for Safeguarding Europe's Water" in 2012 and the Chinese government plans to spend $600 billion over the next 10 years on measures to ensure adequate water supplies for the country. But it is not enough. The situation requires a response that goes far beyond regional and national initiatives ~-~- we need a global water plan. With the current state of affairs, correcting measures still can be taken to avoid the crisis to be worsening. But it demands that we act now. We need a new way of thinking about water. We need to stop depleting our water resources, and urge water conservation on a global scale. This calls for a global awareness that water is a very scarce and valuable natural resource and that we need to initiate fundamental technological and management changes, and combine this with international solidarity and cooperation. In 2009, The International Water Management Institute called for a blue revolution as the only way to move forward: "We will need nothing less than a 'Blue Revolution', if we are to achieve food security and avert a serious water crisis in the future" said Dr. Colin Chartres, Director General of the International Water Management Institute. This meaning that we need ensure "more crop per drop": while many developing countries use precious water to grow 1 ton of rice per hectare, other countries produce 5 tons per hectare under similar social and water conditions, but with better technology and management. Thus, if we behave intelligently, and collaborate between neighbors, between neighboring countries, between North and South, and in the global trading system, we shall not 'run out of water'. If we do not, and "business as usual" prevails, then water wars will accelerate.
33 +That goes nuclear
34 +Zahoor 12 (Musharaf, Researcher at Department of Nuclear Politics – National Defense University, Water Crisis can Trigger Nuclear War in South Asia, http://www.siasat.pk)
35 +Water is an ambient source, which unlike human beings does not respect boundaries. Water has been a permanent source of conflict between the tribes since biblical times and now between the states. The conflicts are much more likely among those states, which are mainly dependent on shared water sources. The likelihood of turning these conflicts into wars is increased when these countries or states are mainly arid or receive low precipitations. In this situation, the upper riparian states (situated on upper parts of a river basin) often try to maximize water utility by neglecting the needs of the lower riparian states (situated on low lying areas of a river basin). However, international law on distribution of trans-boundary river water and mutually agreed treaties by the states have helped to some extent in overcoming these conflicts. In the recent times, the climate change has also affected the water availability. The absence of water management and conservation mechanisms in some regions particularly in the third world countries have exacerbated the water crisis. These states have become prone to wars in future. South Asia is among one of those regions where water needs are growing disproportionately to its availability. The high increase in population besides large-scale cultivation has turned South Asia into a water scarce region. The two nuclear neighbors Pakistan and India share the waters** of Indus Basin. All the major rivers stem from the Himalyan region and pass through Kashmir down to the planes of Punjab and Sindh empty into Arabic ocean. It is pertinent that the strategic importance of Kashmir, a source of all major rivers, for Pakistan and symbolic importance of Kashmir for India are maximum list positions. Both the countries have fought two major wars in 1948, 1965 and a limited war in Kargil specifically on the Kashmir dispute. Among other issues, the newly born states fell into water sharing dispute right after their partition. Initially under an agreed formula, Pakistan paid for the river waters to India, which is an upper riparian state. After a decade long negotiations, both the states signed Indus Water Treaty in 1960. Under the treaty, India was given an exclusive right of three eastern rivers Sutlej, Bias and Ravi while Pakistan was given the right of three Western Rivers, Indus, Chenab and Jhelum. The tributaries of these rivers are also considered their part under the treaty. It was assumed that the treaty had permanently resolved the water issue, which proved a nightmare in the latter course. India by exploiting the provisions of IWT started wanton construction of dams on Pakistani rivers thus scaling down the water availability to Pakistan (a lower riparian state). The treaty only allows run of the river hydropower projects and does not permit to construct such water reservoirs on Pakistani rivers, which may affect the water flow to the low lying areas. According to the statistics of Hydel power Development Corporation of Indian Occupied Kashmir, India has a plan to construct 310 small, medium and large dams in the territory. India has already started work on 62 dams in the first phase. The cumulative dead and live storage of these dams will be so great that India can easily manipulate the water of Pakistani rivers. India has set up a department called the Chenab Valley Power Projects to construct power plants on the Chenab River in occupied Kashmir. India is also constructing three major hydro-power projects on Indus River which include Nimoo Bazgo power project, Dumkhar project and Chutak project. On the other hand, it has started Kishan ***** hydropower project by diverting the waters of Neelum River, a tributary of the Jhelum, in sheer violation of the IWT. The gratuitous construction of dams by India has created serious water shortages in Pakistan. The construction of Kishan ***** dam will turn the Neelum valley, which is located in Azad Kashmir into a barren land. The water shortage will not only affect the cultivation but it has serious social, political and economic ramifications for Pakistan. The farmer associations have already started protests in Southern Punjab and Sindh against the non-availability of water. These protests are so far limited and under control. The reports of international organizations suggest that the water availability in Pakistan will reduce further in the coming years. If the situation remains unchanged, the violent mobs of villagers across the country will be a major law and order challenge for the government. The water shortage has also created mistrust among the federative units, which is evident from the fact that the President and the Prime Minister had to intervene for convincing Sindh and Punjab provinces on water sharing formula. The Indus River System Authority (IRSA) is responsible for distribution of water among the provinces but in the current situation it has also lost its credibility. The provinces often accuse each other of water theft. In the given circumstances, Pakistan desperately wants to talk on water issue with India. The meetings between Indus Water Commissioners of Pakistan and India have so far yielded no tangible results. The recent meeting in Lahore has also ended without concrete results. India is continuously using delaying tactics to under pressure Pakistan. The Indus Water Commissioners are supposed to resolve the issues bilaterally through talks. The success of their meetings can be measured from the fact that Pakistan has to knock at international court of arbitration for the settlement of Kishan ***** hydropower project. The recently held foreign minister level talks between both the countries ended inconclusively in Islamabad, which only resulted in heightening the mistrust and suspicions. The water stress in Pakistan is increasing day by day. The construction of dams will not only cause damage to the agriculture sector but India can manipulate the river water to create inundations in Pakistan. The rivers in Pakistan are also vital for defense during wartime. The control over the water will provide an edge to India during war with Pakistan. The failure of diplomacy, manipulation of IWT provisions by India and growing water scarcity in Pakistan and its social, political and economic repercussions for the country can lead both the countries toward a war. The existent asymmetry between the conventional forces of both the countries will compel the weaker side to use nuclear weapons to prevent the opponent from taking any advantage of the situation. Pakistan's nuclear programme is aimed at to create minimum credible deterrence. India has a declared nuclear doctrine which intends to retaliate massively in case of first strike by its' enemy. In 2003, India expanded the operational parameters for its nuclear doctrine. Under the new parameters, it will not only use nuclear weapons against a nuclear strike but will also use nuclear weapons against a nuclear strike on Indian forces anywhere. Pakistan has a draft nuclear doctrine, which consists on the statements of high ups. Describing the nuclear thresh-hold in January 2002, General Khalid Kidwai, the head of Pakistan's Strategic Plans Division, in an interview to Landau Network, said that Pakistan will use nuclear weapons in case India occupies large parts of its territory, economic strangling by India, political disruption and if India destroys Pakistan's forces. The analysis of the ambitious nuclear doctrines of both the countries clearly points out that any military confrontation in the region can result in a nuclear catastrophe. The rivers flowing from Kashmir are Pakistan's lifeline, which are essential for the livelihood of 170 million people of the country and the cohesion of federative units. The failure of dialogue will leave no option but to achieve the ends through military means. The only way to discard the lurking fear of a nuclear cataclysm is to settle all the outstanding disputes amicably through dialogue. The international community has a special role in this regard. It should impress upon India to initiate meaningful talks to resolve the lingering Kashmir dispute with Pakistan and implement the water treaty in its letter and spirit. The Indian leadership should drive out its policy towards Pakistan from terrorism mantra to a solution-oriented dialogue process. Both the countries should adopt a joint mechanism to maximize the utility of river waters by implementing the 1960 treaty, Besides negotiations with India, Pakistan should start massive water conservation and management projects. The modern techniques in agriculture like i.e. drip irrigation, should be adopted. On the other hand, there is a dire need to gradually upgrade the obsolete irrigation system in Pakistan. The politicization of mega hydropower projects/dams is also a problem being faced by Pakistan, which can only be resolved through political will.
36 +
37 +AT Nuke Terror
38 +Automatic emergency procedures will prevent terrorists from achieving any destruction.
39 +Cravens, Gwyneth. "Terrorism and Nuclear Energy: Understanding the Risks." Brookings. Brookings Institute, 1 Mar. 2002. Web. 25 Aug. 2016. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/terrorism-and-nuclear-energy-understanding-the-risks/.
40 +“Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, Americans have had to learn to discriminate between real and imagined risks in many areas. When it comes to domestic nuclear terrorism—a subject that has been touched recently by highly speculative journalism—making that distinction requires knowing some nuclear fundamentals. Based on science, what should Americans worry about? Is radiation always dangerous? How do we protect ourselves? Could terrorists unleash a Chernobyl on our soil? Could nuclear waste dumps or power plants be transformed into atomic weapons? Could terrorists make a ‘dirty’ bomb capable of widespread contamination and deaths from radiation? Could they steal an American nuclear weapon and detonate it? The Energy Department’s nine national laboratories have begun an extensive review of counterterrorism, including the vulnerability of U.S. nuclear sites and materials. Some findings may remain undisclosed for security reasons; others may be made public—soon, one hopes. Meanwhile, here are some basics. Radioactive materials contain unstable atoms, radionuclides, that emit excess energy as radiation, invisible but detectable by instrument. Some atoms lose their energy rapidly; others remain dangerous for thousands, even millions of years. Certain forms of radiation are more hazardous to humans, depending on the type of particles emitted. The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), composed of scientists and consultants from 21 nations, provides comprehensive evaluations on sources and effects of radiation as the scientific basis for estimating health risk. UNSCEAR’s reports are almost universally considered objective and reliable. It recently listed annual average exposures per person worldwide. Natural background radiation: 240 millirem worldwide (300 millirem in the United States). The earth’s core is a natural reactor, and all life evolved within a cloud of radiation stronger than background radiation is today. Cosmic rays, sunlight, rocks, soil, radon, water, and even the human body are radioactive—blood and bones contain radionuclides. Exposure is higher in certain locations and occupations than in others (airline flight personnel receive greater than average lifetime doses of cosmic radiation). Diagnostic medical radiation: 40 millirem (60 millirem in the United States). This is the largest source of manmade radiation affecting humans. Other common manmade sources include mining residues, microwave ovens, televisions, smoke detectors, and cigarette smoke—a pack and a half a day equals four daily chest x-rays. Coal combustion: 2 millirem. Every year in the United States alone, coal-fired plants, which provide about half of the nation’s electricity, expel, along with toxic chemicals and greenhouse gases, 100 times the radioactivity of nuclear plants: hundreds of tons of uranium and thorium, daughter products like radium and radon, and hundreds of pounds of uranium-235. Radioactive fly ash, a coal byproduct used in building and paving materials, contributes an additional dose. Coal pollutants are estimated to cause about 15,000 premature deaths annually in the United States. Nuclear power: 0.02 millirem (0.05 in the United States). The Environmental Protection Agency, whose standards are the world’s strictest, limits exposure from a given site to 15 millirem a year—far lower than average background radiation. For radiation to begin to damage DNA enough to produce noticeable health effects, exposure must dramatically increase—to about 20 rem, or 20,000 millirem. Above 100 rem, or 100,000 millirem, diseases manifest. Whether low-dosage radiation below a certain threshold poses no danger and may in fact be essential to organisms is controversial (the Department of Energy began the human genome project to help determine if such a threshold exists). If exposure is not too intense or prolonged, cells can usually repair themselves. Radiation is used widely to treat and to research illnesses. The horrible—and preventable—reactor explosion at Chernobyl caused fatalities and suffering among the local population but increased the overall background radiation level by a factor of only 0.00083 worldwide. According to UNSCEAR, contamination greater than background radiation was limited to 20 square miles around the plant. The severest casualties occurred among plant workers and firemen, two of whom died from scalding. Another 134 suffered acute radiation sickness. Twenty-eight of those victims died within three months; 13 succumbed later. The rest survived. Among civilians in surrounding communities, UNSCEAR found 1,800 cases of thyroid cancer, mostly in children, and predicted more would develop. Thyroid cancer could have been avoided, however, had the entire population surrounding Chernobyl been promptly given potassium iodide, which blocks the uptake by the thyroid of radio-iodine, a radionuclide produced by reactors. Fourteen years after the accident, no other evidence of a major health effect attributable to radiation exposure had been found. The UNSCEAR report states: ‘There is no scientific evidence of increases in overall cancer incidence or mortality or in non-malignant disorders that could be related to radiation exposure. The risk of leukemia, one of the main concerns owing to its short latency time, does not appear to be elevated, not even among the recovery operation workers. Although those most highly exposed individuals are at an increased risk of radiation-associated effects, the great majority of the population are not likely to experience serious health consequences from radiation from the Chernobyl accident.’ What UNSCEAR also found was that ‘the accident had a large negative psychological impact on thousands of people.’ Fear, born of ignorance of real risk coupled with anxiety about imagined harm, produced epidemics of psychosomatic illnesses and elective abortions. Better management of the emergency, including adequate dissemination of facts, probably could have prevented much of this psychic trauma. Risk perception tends to be skewed by unexpected, dramatic events—a quirk of human nature exploited by terrorists. More severe risks almost always lurk in everyday life: cardiovascular disease (about 2,286,000 U.S. deaths annually), smoking-related illnesses (over 400,000), and motor vehicle accidents (about 42,500). That other accident-related cancers may eventually appear around Chernobyl is possible but unlikely, given results of long-term surveys of the approximately 85,000 survivors of the bombs exploded over Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. Despite the far higher dosages of radiation to which these victims were exposed, recent data cited by Fred Mettler, U.S. representative to UNSCEAR and chairman of the Radiology Department at the University of New Mexico, show that 12,000 have died of cancer—700 more than would be expected. (Normally about one in three humans gets cancer.) A few years ago, after much debate, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission offered free emergency contingency supplies of potassium iodide to the 31 states with reactors, but most declined. Illinois has 11 reactors; its officials feared that the pills—’a cruel hoax’— would fool people into thinking they were safe from radiation; they and officials in other states argued that evacuation was the best protection. Delay from the Food and Drug Administration regarding approval of the antidote, as well as opposition to it at the county level, created further obstacles. After September 11, communities and politicians expressed indignation that this inexpensive drug had not been stockpiled. Last December, the NRC announced that it would require states with populations within the 10-mile emergency planning zone of a nuclear power plant to consider ‘including potassium iodide (KI) as a protective measure for the general public in the unlikely event of a severe accident. This measure would supplement sheltering and evacuation, the usual protective measures.’ Nine states have now requested tablets. Could any of the 103 nuclear reactors in the United States be turned into a bomb? No. The laws of physics preclude it. In a nuclear weapon, radioactive atoms are packed densely enough within a small chamber to initiate an instantaneous explosive chain reaction. A reactor is far too large to produce the density and heat needed to create a nuclear explosion. Could terrorists turn any of our reactors into a Chernobyl? Again, extremely unlikely. American reactors have a completely different design. All reactors require a medium around the fuel rods to slow down the neutrons given off by the controlled chain reaction that ultimately produces heat to make steam to turn turbines that generate electricity. In the United States the medium is water, which also acts as a coolant. In the Chernobyl reactor it was graphite. Water is not combustible, but graphite—pure carbon—is combustible at high temperatures. Abysmal management, reckless errors, violation of basic safety procedures, and poor engineering at Chernobyl caused the core to melt down through several floors. A subsequent explosion involving steam and hydrogen blew off the roof (there was no containment structure) and ignited the graphite. Most of the radioactive core spewed out. A similar meltdown at the Three Mile Island power plant in 1979—one caused by equipment malfunctions and human failure to grasp what was happening and respond appropriately—involved no large explosion, no breach. The reactor automatically shut down. Loss of coolant water caused half the core to melt, but its debris was held by the containment vessel. Contaminated water flooded the reactor building, but no one was seriously injured. A minute quantity of radioactive gases (insignificant, especially in comparison to the radionuclides routinely discharged from coal-fired plants in the region) escaped through a charcoal-filtered stack and was dissipated by wind over the Atlantic, never reaching the ground. The people and land around the plant were unharmed. In response, the NRC initiated more safeguards at all plants, including improvements in equipment monitoring, redundancy (with two or more independent systems for every safety-related function), personnel training, and emergency responsiveness. The commission also started a safety rating system that can affect the price of plant owners’ stock. The new science of probabilistic risk assessment, developed to ensure the safety of the world’s first permanent underground nuclear waste-disposal facility, has led to new risk-informed regulation. In over two decades no meltdowns have occurred and minor mishaps at all nuclear plants have decreased sharply. Cuts by Congress in the NRC’s annual research budget over the past 20 years—from $200 million to $43 million—may have considerably compromised ongoing reforms and effectiveness, however. U.S. nuclear power plants, which are subject to both federal and international regulation, are designed to withstand extreme events and are among the sturdiest and most impenetrable structures on the planet—second only to nuclear bunkers. Three nesting containment barriers shield the fuel rods. First, metal cladding around the rods contains fission products during the life of the fuel. Then a large steel vessel with walls about five inches thick surrounds the reactor and its coolant. And enclosing that is a large building made of a shell of steel covered with reinforced concrete four to six feet thick. After the truck-bomb explosion at the World Trade Center in 1993 and the crash of a station wagon driven by a mentally ill intruder into the turbine building (not the reactor building) at Three Mile Island, plants multiplied vehicle and other barriers and stepped up detection systems, access controls, and alarm stations. Plants also enhanced response strategies tested by mock raids by commandos familiar with plant layouts. These staged intrusions have occasionally been successful, leading to further corrections. On September 11, all nuclear facilities were put on highest alert indefinitely. Still more protective barriers are being erected. The NRC, after completing a thorough review of all levels of plant security, has just mandated additional personnel screening and access controls as well as closer cooperation with local law-enforcement agencies. Local governments have posted state troopers or the National Guard around commercial plants, and military surveillance continues. What if terrorists gained access to a reactor? An attempt to melt down the core would activate multiple safeguards, including alternate means of providing coolant as well as withdrawal of the fuel rods from the chain reaction process. And if a jetliner slammed into a reactor? Given what is now publicly known, one could predict that earthquake sensors, required in all reactors, would trigger automatic shutdown to protect the core. Scientists at the national labs are calculating whether containment structures could withstand a jumbo jet, specifically the impact of its engines, which are heavier than the fuselage, and any subsequent fire. Even the worst case—a reactor vessel breach—would involve no nuclear explosion, only a limited dispersal of radioactive materials. The extent of the plume would depend on many variables, especially the weather. As a precaution, no-fly zones have been imposed over all nuclear power plants. Military reactors used for weapons production have all been closed for a decade and are spaced miles apart on isolated reservations hundreds of miles square. Any release of radioactivity would remain on site. Commercial radioactive waste is generated chiefly by nuclear power plants, medical labs and hospitals, uranium mine tailings, coal-fired power plants (fissionable materials are concentrated in fly ash), and oil drilling (drill-stems accumulate radioactive minerals and bring them to the surface). Nuclear power provides about one-fifth of the energy the United States needs for electricity generation. At plants around the nation, in deep, steel-lined, heat-reducing pools of water, spent-fuel rods are accumulating in temporary storage. In the 1950s the National Academy of Sciences determined that deep geologic disposal is the safest means on land of permanently isolating nuclear waste. Congress designated Yucca Mountain, at the Nevada Test Site—scene of more than 1,000 atomic blasts—as the first permanent U.S. repository for spent fuel. Its burial has been the goal of the Energy Department and the NRC for decades, but political and bureaucratic obstacles, rather than lack of scientific know-how, have slowed progress. If the present timetable holds, and if political support is forthcoming—still an open question despite President Bush’s recent approval of Yucca Mountain—shipments of spent fuel from plants will begin around 2015. These days citizens have become acutely aware of the waste pools and have questioned their presence in populated areas, yet environmental activists have long sought to keep nuclear waste at power plants, insisting that its removal poses grave dangers. This view, though unsupported by the EPA, the NRC, and numerous risk-assessment studies (nuclear materials are transported daily around the nation without mishap, in contrast to accidents regularly associated with transport of toxic chemicals), has also resonated with politicians. Nevertheless, growing concern about fossil-fuel pollutants and global warming and the realization that nuclear power has spared the atmosphere from billions of tons of carbon dioxide emissions may be encouraging a change of attitudes. Challenges regarding subterranean disposal have already been solved. Because of breakthrough methodologies evolved during construction (by the Energy Department) and certification (by the EPA), New Mexico’s Waste Isolation Pilot Plant is the world’s first successful deep geologic repository for the permanent isolation of federal (as opposed to commercial) nuclear waste. It is a model for other nations. For political reasons, WIPP is permitted by Congress and the state of New Mexico to accept only certain military waste. But nearly 1,000 detailed studies, as well as an innovation in probabilistic risk assessment invented by WIPP’s scientists, have demonstrated that its remoteness, size, and stable geological and climatological features make it the safest place to store any type of waste. In fact, if enlarged or annexed, the WIPP could hold all U.S. nuclear waste generated for decades to come. Would a jet plane crashing into a waste pool cause a nuclear explosion? Given information now available, one can state that if the small target a pool presents were actually hit and coolant water were drained, spent fuel bundles would melt, react with the concrete and soil below the pools, and solidify into a mass—in effect causing containment. Some radionuclides would be vaporized and scattered, but in a very limited fashion, since spent-fuel rods lack immediately releasable energy. The waste pools contain practically no burnable materials. In dry-cask storage, an innovation safer than waste pools, a single bundle of rods is entombed in a thick concrete cylinder, 18 feet tall and 8 feet across, designed to withstand powerful impacts and widely separated from its neighbors. Air is the coolant. If one bundle somehow failed, not enough heat would be available to cause it or other bundles to melt. Sixteen plants have already converted to dry casks, and more will follow. Could terrorists steal spent nuclear fuel? First they would have to get past multiple impediments: guards, high double fences with concertina wire, floodlights, motion detectors, and cameras. Fuel rods are so radioactive that anyone coming within a few feet of them would become extremely ill and die within hours if not minutes. The more radioactive something is, the harder it is for someone to steal—and survive. Special equipment and thick lead shields are required for handling, and spent fuel for transport must be placed in casks weighing about 90 tons that have been stringently tested (burned with jet fuel, dropped from great heights onto steel spikes, and otherwise assaulted) and have remained impervious. Could terrorists make a nuclear weapon from commercial U.S. reactor fuel? Not easily. It is enriched with uranium-235 but not nearly enough to make it weapons-grade. Extracting the enriched uranium-235 would require a large, sophisticated chemical separation plant. Could terrorists rob a weapons facility of weapons-grade plutonium or uranium? Mock raids of the kind used to test nuclear power plants have been conducted to uncover weaknesses at weapons research sites. The exercises have demonstrated the need for maximum protection and independent oversight of security forces as well as of the network used to transport weapons materials. Since 10 a.m. on September 11, these sites have been placed on highest security. Precautions at some nuclear weapons facilities abroad are almost certainly weaker than here—and international terrorists would seem more likely to make a run at those installations before challenging ours. Terrorists with sufficient expertise and resources could in theory build a nuclear bomb but only with enormous difficulty. Starting a chain reaction is not simple. Highly enriched uranium—very problematic to acquire—would have to be correctly contained to obtain an explosion. Terrorists stealing an American nuclear weapon couldn’t explode it without detailed knowledge of classified procedures that unlock numerous fail-safe mechanisms. Nuclear weapons that have been accidentally dropped from aircraft or involved in plane crashes, for instance, have not exploded. The reason: these devices are designed to blow up only when properly detonated. More than 61 million people live within 50 miles of temporary military nuclear waste sites, many of which hold—in antiquated, leaky enclosures or pressurized tents—the legacies of the Manhattan Project, the Cold War, and disarmament treaties requiring the dismantling of nuclear weapons. If politics do not interfere, within 10 years radioactive military waste will remain near 4 million people. In the 1980s, the Energy Department began a massive cleanup, the world’s largest public works project ever. After a decade of delays and lawsuits by environmentalists, the WIPP opened in 1999. The satellite-monitored trucks that transport the waste have been highly and redundantly engineered, and their casks subjected to the same tests as those for commercial waste. Drivers are thoroughly vetted. Most shipments consist of mildly radioactive trash like coveralls, paper cups, and sludge. The debris is entombed half a mile underground in steel drums in a salt bed sandwiched between water-impermeable rock strata. The salt, plastic at that depth, and impermeable to radionuclides, eventually encloses the drums, providing another natural barrier An aircraft diving into an above-ground nuclear waste dump could not cause a nuclear explosion. The materials are neither refined nor concentrated enough to start a chain reaction. (Any material that could sustain one has been removed to be reused.) And because most high-level waste is isolated on big reservations like Hanford and Savannah River, which are fenced in and under heavy surveillance, casual access is highly unlikely. Recently considerable apprehension has been expressed about nuclear materials being wrapped around conventional explosives to make a ‘dirty’ bomb. This relatively low-tech approach appears more feasible than other threats and could induce widespread panic by appearing to expose a population to radiation. But how radioactive could such a bomb be? Spent fuel would deliver the highest dose of radiation. Contamination from such a bomb would be serious. But wrapping the conventional explosives with spent fuel would be, as noted, a cumbersome operation and would promptly subject the perpetrators to fatal exposure. Suicidal terrorists might nevertheless make the attempt, but it would be surprising indeed if simpler projects that can also pack a big punch were not pursued first, even by fanatics who are less than entirely rational. Last winter’s ‘shoe bomber’ tried to detonate not a nuclear device but rather a relatively available, very dangerous chemical compound concealed in his shoes. Neither medical nor WIPP-destined waste would provide much radioactivity because of the low concentration of radionuclides. More accessible materials (syringes, fly ash, uranium mine tailings, smoke detectors) could be included in a conventional bomb to make a Geiger counter tick a little faster, but physical damage from an explosion would be limited to what the conventional blast could do. Radiological harm would be negligible, if any occurred at all. More must be done to secure our nuclear facilities. Operators must continue to improve safeguards, giving high priority to human engineering. Inexpensive but highly effective entry systems like those used at national laboratories should be instituted at power plants, and more fail-safe systems to compensate for human error ought to be installed. Safer, cleaner, more efficient reactor designs now exist and should replace outmoded ones. Without further delay, nuclear waste must be transferred to permanent repositories. Ultimately all nuclear facilities would be even safer if relocated underground. An infrastructure in which small reactors provided energy to regions, each independent of the national grid, would prevent a catastrophic nationwide power failure in the event of an attack. In recent years, the Energy Department has tried to make its operations more transparent, but it still needs to reach out to the public to win trust. The technological and political communities—now sharply divided—must begin dialogues at both national and local levels. Because people are now recognizing as never before government’s essential role in providing protection, aid, and counsel, the time is right for leaders and policymakers in both camps to clear up old misunderstandings.”
41 +AT Accidents
42 +Strict regulations prevent accidents
43 +EIA ‘15
44 +, “Nuclear Power and the Environment”, US Energy Information Administration, 12 Nov 2015
45 +An uncontrolled nuclear reaction in a nuclear reactor can potentially result in widespread contamination of air and water. The risk of this happening at nuclear power plants in the United States is considered to be small because of the diverse and redundant barriers and many safety systems in place at nuclear power plants, the training and skills of the reactor operators, testing and maintenance activities, and the regulatory requirements and oversight of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. A large area surrounding nuclear power plants is restricted and guarded by armed security teams. U.S. reactors have containment vessels that are designed to withstand extreme weather events and earthquakes.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2016-09-17 17:22:19.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Varad Agarwala
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Sunset RB
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +0
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2
Team
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +West Nelson Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +1NC ShiftDesal Greenhill Round 2
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Greenhill
Caselist.CitesClass[1]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,3 @@
1 +Focusing on representations trades off with social change – fiat is key to reversing institutionalized oppression. Giroux 6
2 +Henry Giroux 06, prof of edu and cultural studies at Penn State, 6 (Comparative Studies of South Asia)
3 +Abstracted from the ideal of public commitment, the new authoritarianism represents a political and economic practice and form of militarism that loosens the connections among substantive democracy, critical agency, and critical education. In opposition to the rising tide of authoritarianism, educators across the globe must make a case for linking learning to progressive social change while struggling to pluralize and critically engage the diverse sites where public pedagogy takes place. In part, this suggests forming alliances that can make sure every sphere of social life is recognized as an important site of the political, social, and cultural struggle that is so crucial to any attempt to forge the knowledge, identifications, effective investments, and social relations that constitute political subjects and social agents capable of energizing and spreading the basis for a substantive global democracy. Such circumstances require that pedagogy be embraced as a moral and political practice, one that is directive and not dogmatic, an outgrowth of struggles designed to resist the increasing depoliticization of political culture that is the hallmark of the current Bush revolution. Education is the terrain where consciousness is shaped, needs are constructed, and the capacity for individual self-reflection and broad social change is nurtured and produced. Education has assumed an unparalleled significance in shaping the language, values, and ideologies that legitimize the structures and organizations that support the imperatives of global capitalism. Efforts to reduce it to a technique or methodology set aside, education remains a crucial site for the production and struggle over those pedagogical and political conditions that provide the possibilities for people to develop forms of agency that enable them individually and collectively to intervene in the processes through which the material relations of power shape the meaning and practices of their everyday lives. Within the current historical context, struggles over power take on a symbolic and discursive as well as a material and institutional form. The struggle over education is about more than the struggle over meaning and identity; it is also about how meaning, knowledge, and values are produced, authorized, and made operational within economic and structural relations of power. Education is not at odds with politics; it is an important and crucial element in any definition of the political and offers not only the theoretical tools for a systematic critique of authoritarianism but also a language of possibility for creating actual movements for democratic social change and a new biopolitics that affirms life rather than death, shared responsibility rather than shared fears, and engaged citizenship rather than the stripped-down values of consumerism. At stake here is combining symbolic forms and processes conducive to democratization with broader social contexts and the institutional formations of power itself. The key point here is to understand and engage educational and pedagogical practices from the point of view of how they are bound up with larger relations of power. Educators, students, and parents need to be clearer about how power works through and in texts, representations, and discourses, while at the same time recognizing that power cannot be limited to the study of representations and discourses, even at the level of public policy. Changing consciousness is not the same as altering the institutional basis of oppression; at the same time, institutional reform cannot take place without a change in consciousness capable of recognizing not only injustice but also the very possibility for reform, the capacity to reinvent the conditions End Page 176 and practices that make a more just future possible. In addition, it is crucial to raise questions about the relationship between pedagogy and civic culture, on the one hand, and what it takes for individuals and social groups to believe that they have any responsibility whatsoever even to address the realities of class, race, gender, and other specific forms of domination, on the other hand. For too long, the progressives have ignored that the strategic dimension of politics is inextricably connected to questions of critical education and pedagogy, to what it means to acknowledge that education is always tangled up with power, ideologies, values, and the acquisition of both particular forms of agency and specific visions of the future. The primacy of critical pedagogy to politics, social change, and the radical imagination in such dark times is dramatically captured by the internationally renowned sociologist Zygmunt Bauman. He writes, Adverse odds may be overwhelming, and yet a democratic (or, as Cornelius Castoriadis would say, an autonomous) society knows of no substitute for education and self-education as a means to influence the turn of events that can be squared with its own nature, while that nature cannot be preserved for long without "critical pedagogy"—an education sharpening its critical edge, "making society feel guilty" and "stirring things up" through stirring human consciences. The fates of freedom, of democracy that makes it possible while being made possible by it, and of education that breeds dissatisfaction with the level of both freedom and democracy achieved thus far, are inextricably connected and not to be detached from one another. One may view that intimate connection as another specimen of a vicious circle—but it is within that circle that human hopes and the chances of humanity are inscribed, and can be nowhere else.59
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2016-09-18 01:13:07.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Felix Tan
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Marlborough MC
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +1
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +4
Team
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +West Nelson Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +1NC vs Natives
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Greenhill
Caselist.CitesClass[2]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,55 @@
1 +Shift DA:
2 +Nuclear power phase out means a shift to gas and coal – proven by Japan. Baum 15
3 +Seth Baum Executive Director of the Global Catastrophic Risk Institute; Ph.D., Geography, Pennsylvania State University; M.S., Electrical Engineering, Northeastern University, October 20, 2015, "Japan should restart more nuclear power plants," Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, http://thebulletin.org/japan-should-restart-more-nuclear-power-plants8817. Credits: Greenhill SK
4 +Turning off nuclear power requires either turning on another power source, or using less electricity. Japan has done both. Its total energy consumption is down 10 percent since 2010 due to the nuclear phase-out, but use of natural gas, a source of greenhouse gas emissions, is up 19 percent, and use of coal, which is even more harmful to the environment, is up 2 percent. (The data is available here.) Japan is now building 45 new coal power plants, but if it turned its nuclear power plants back on (except of course for the damaged Fukushima facilities), it could cut coal consumption in half. And coal poses more health and climate change dangers than nuclear power.
5 +We control empirics. Nordhaus 16
6 +Ted Nordhaus Founder and Chairman of the Breakthrough Institute, an Environmental Policy Think Tank, BA in History from the University of California, initiatives for the Public Interest Research Groups, the Sierra Club, Environmental Defense, and Clean Water Action, 7-15-2016, "Without nuke power, climate change threat grows: Column," USA TODAY, http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/07/15/nuclear-diablo-canyon-plant-closing-energy-power-california-environmentalists-column/87090886/. West KN
7 +That’s consistent with past closures of nuclear power stations. When nuclear plants close, one can reliably count on them being substantially replaced by fossil fuels. This was the case when California closed the San Onofre nuclear power station in 2012, when Japan shuttered its nuclear fleet after Fukushima, and in Germany, which despite spending hundreds of billions of dollars over the last decade to replace its nuclear power fleet with renewable energy, announced last month that it was reneging on its commitment to phase out its large fleet of coal-fired power stations because it can’t keep the lights on without them.
8 +Two Impacts:
9 +1 Nuclear power has prevented massive amounts of death as compared to coal and gas. Hansen and Kharecha 13
10 +James Hansen, PhD in Physics from the University of Iowa; Currently works at the Earth Institute as a Professor at Columbia University, Pushker Kharecha, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies; Researcher at Columbia in Earth Science; PhD’s in Geosciences and Astrobiology, " Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power" Environmental Science and Technology, http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2013/2013_Kharecha_kh05000e.pdf, March 13, 2013. West KN
11 +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 CO2 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),(17) 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(19) 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).
12 +2 Coal causes huge harms and environmental racism—turns case. GEP ‘15
13 +GEP 15, “Environmental Racism in America: An Overview of the Environmental Justice Movement and the Role of Race in Environmental Policies”, The Goldman Environmental Press, 24 Jun 2015
14 +The problem of racial profiling in America relates to more than just police brutality and the senseless acts of violence that have recently captured the national spotlight. Race also plays a determining role in environmental policies regarding land use, zoning and regulations. As a result, African American, Latino, indigenous and low-income communities are more likely to live next to a coal-fired power plant, landfill, refinery or other highly polluting facility. These communities bear a disproportionate burden of toxic contamination as a result of pollution in and around their neighborhoods. Moreover, these communities have historically had a diminished response capacity to fight back against such policies.¶ A recent report from the NAACP entitled “Coal Blooded: Putting Profits Before People,” found that among the nearly six million Americans living within three miles of a coal plant, 39 are people of color – a figure that is higher than the 36 proportion of people of color in the total US population. The report also found that 78 of all African Americans live within 30 miles of a coal fired power plant.¶ In an interview for Yale Environment 360, Jacqueline Patterson, the Environmental and Climate Justice Director for the NAACP commented on the disproportionate burden faced by communities of color:¶ “An African American child is three times more likely to go into the emergency room for an asthma attack than a white child, and twice as likely to die from asthma attacks as a white child. African Americans are more likely to die from lung disease, but less likely to smoke. When we did a road tour to visit the communities that were impacted by coal pollution, we found many anecdotal stories of people saying, yes, my husband, my father, my wife died of lung cancer and never smoked a day in her life. And these are people who are living within three miles of the coal-fired power plants we visited.”
15 +Err neg on this question: The impacts are underestimated – coal is more likely than gas to be substituted – multiple warrants. Hansen and Kharecha 13
16 +James Hansen, PhD in Physics from the University of Iowa; Currently works at the Earth Institute as a Professor at Columbia University, Pushker Kharecha, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies; Researcher at Columbia in Earth Science; PhD’s in Geosciences and Astrobiology, " Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power" Environmental Science and Technology, http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2013/2013_Kharecha_kh05000e.pdf, March 13, 2013. West KN
17 +On the other hand, if coal would not have been as dominant a replacement for nuclear as assumed in our baseline historical scenario, then our avoided historical impacts could be overestimates, since coal causes much larger impacts than gas (Table 1). However, there are several reasons this is unlikely. Key characteristics of coal plants (e.g., plant capacity, capacity factor, and total production costs) are historically much more similar to nuclear plants than are those of natural gas plants.13 Also, the vast majority of existing nuclear plants were built before 1990, but advanced gas plants that would be suitable replacements for base-load nuclear plants (i.e., combined-cycle gas turbines)
18 +Coal O/W
19 +Coal is comparatively worse for death and health – it is constant exposure vs temporary exposure. Baum 15
20 +Seth Baum Executive Director of the Global Catastrophic Risk Institute; Ph.D., Geography, Pennsylvania State University; M.S., Electrical Engineering, Northeastern University, October 20, 2015, "Japan should restart more nuclear power plants," Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, http://thebulletin.org/japan-should-restart-more-nuclear-power-plants8817. Credits: Greenhill SK
21 +The primary harm caused by nuclear accidents is increased cancer risk from released radiation. But the radiation levels from Fukushima are so low that the cancer increase will be barely noticeable, and may not happen at all. To be sure, the radiation exposure would have been worse if the prevailing winds did not blow most of the radiation out to the Pacific. But as with the Chernobyl catastrophe in 1986, the Fukushima disaster caused more harm from overreaction to the radiation than from radiation itself. That’s partly because excessive evacuations can cause more deaths than they prevent. The anti-radiation stigma also levied a psychological toll, with some healthy people committing suicide. In Chernobyl, as many as 100,000 unnecessary abortions may have been performed due to fears of radiation’s impact. Another nuclear power plant accident in the near future is, moreover, extremely unlikely. It is normal to pay attention to disasters that are fresh in our memory and overestimate the risk of another; psychologists call this the recency effect. But nuclear plant accidents do not come in bunches. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the Fukushima accident is only the second Level 7 major accident in nuclear power history, the first being the Chernobyl disaster 29 years ago. If anything, we should expect the probability of another accident in Japan to be smaller now because so many people are paying attention to the plants and the institutions overseeing them. Meanwhile, coal plants also damage human health, through asthma, bronchitis, cancer, and other illnesses. The difference is that nuclear plants only harm health following rare accidents, whereas working coal plants do so all the time. So by switching from nuclear to coal, Japan is rejecting a small chance of increased cancer in favor of a guaranteed increase in cancer and other maladies. In fact, one study found that coal causes 387 times more deaths per unit of energy than nuclear power. Since coal is also more expensive for Japan (as even critics of the nuclear restart have pointed out), restarting the nuclear plants appears to be very much in the country’s national interest.
22 +Warming DA:
23 +Nuclear power is increasing – many plans are being built or are under consideration. Groskopf ‘01/26
24 +Christopher Groskopf – reporter. “New nuclear reactors are being built a lot more like cars.” Quartz. January 26, 2016. http://qz.com/581566/new-nuclear-reactors-are-being-built-a-lot-more-like-cars/ creds: JJN
25 +At its birth, nuclear power was a closely guarded national enterprise, only accessible to the most prosperous nations. But over the last 50 years it has evolved into a robust international market with a global supply chain. Not only are more countries starting or considering new nuclear plants, a great many more countries are contributing to their construction. According to data from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) 66 nuclear reactors are under construction around the world. Dozens more are in various stages of planning. The vast majority of new reactors are being built in China, which has invested in nuclear power in a way not seen since the United States and France first built out their capacity in the 1960’s and 70’s. China’s 2015 Five Year Plan calls for 40 reactors to be built by 2020 and as many as ten more are planned for every year thereafter. Fifteen other countries around the world are also building reactors. The Chinese sprint toward nuclear power is along a path toward becoming a major exporter of nuclear technology and expertise. In addition to adopting western designs, China also has its own reactor designs. Plants based on those designs are also under construction both China and in Pakistan. Other countries are considering them. At the same time China has upgraded its capacity to produce pressure vessels, turbines and other heavy manufacturing components—all of which it is expected to begin exporting. This sort of globalized manufacturing is nothing new: cars, airplanes and most other complicated machines are built in this way. However, it is new for reactors, which must be constructed on-site and rely on highly specialized parts. Those parts must be manufactured to tolerances well beyond what is required in other industries. In some cases even the equipment needed to creating them must be purpose-built. Consider, for example, the steel pressure vessel at the heart of the most common reactor designs. These vessels can only be created in the world’s largest steel presses—some of which exert more than 30,000 pounds of force. The vessels are forged out of solid steel ingots that may weigh more than a million pounds. Until recently there were only a handful of such presses in the world. Today there are at least 23, spread across 11 countries, according to the World Nuclear Association (WNA). Such specialization is not limited to heavy manufacturing. Nuclear reactors require thousands of other mechanical and electronic components, many of which are purpose-made. A brochure from the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) identifies hundreds of individual parts. (pdf) Even otherwise common products may need to meet extraordinarily fine tolerances. Standards require that steel elements relevant to safety are manufactured with exceptional “nuclear-grade steel.” According to another NEI list, the construction of a new reactor may require a total of: 500 to 3,000 nuclear grade valves 125 to 250 pumps 44 miles of piping 300 miles of electric wiring 90,000 electrical components According to Greg Kaser, who analyzes supply chains for the WNA, the market for nuclear components has been driven by US-based reactor companies, namely Westinghouse Electric Company. “The US can’t produce everything that’s required for a nuclear reactor anymore, so they have to go international,” Kaser told Quartz. Reactors based on Westinghouse’s AP1000 design are under construction in both the US and China. The parts for these reactors are sourced from all over the world. Many come from European companies that were originally created to supply domestic nuclear programs, but have since become important exporters. This trade in nuclear components is difficult to measure. Despite the specific qualifications of a nuclear-grade valve, it is still a valve and doesn’t necessarily show up in trade statistics as anything more. A great deal of trade is also in expertise. Engineers from China, Japan, South Korea and the United States frequently consult on (or lead) nuclear projects around the world. A 2014 WNA report (paywall) estimates that the total value of investments in new nuclear facilities through 2030 will be $1.2 trillion. But this nuclear globalization has not been greeted with enthusiasm everywhere. The 2011 nuclear contamination disaster at Fukushima, Japan, briefly stalled development of some projects and prompted Germany to begin shutting down all of its reactors. A decision by the UK to allow a Chinese company to develop new nuclear reactors in England has led to both domestic and international hand-wringing over the security implications. Others worry about about safety issues resulting from companies faking the certifications required for selling reactor components. In 2013, two South Korean nuclear reactors were shut down when it was discovered that they had installed cables with counterfeit nuclear certifications. This year the IAEA will update a procurement guide for plant operators that was published in 1996. (pdf) The new version will include a chapter specifically addressing counterfeit components. For the moment, it’s unlikely any of these concerns will be enough to slow the resurgent growth of the global nuclear industry. Though big nuclear companies often speak of localizing the supply chain—and keeping those jobs in their home country—international competition can drive down the price of building a reactor. In fact, the supply chain is likely to become even more important to the construction process in the future. New reactors being designed today are both smaller and more modular, and plans call for large sections of them to be assembled in factories and shipped to the site. If it sounds a lot like the assembly line at a automobile plant, that’s because it is. But of course, one small oversight or production flaw could make a much greater difference.
26 +
27 +The projected amount of nuclear power reduces climate change by up to 48 percent. Hansen and Kharecha 13
28 +James Hansen, PhD in Physics from the University of Iowa; Currently works at the Earth Institute as a Professor at Columbia University, Pushker Kharecha, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies; Researcher at Columbia in Earth Science; PhD’s in Geosciences and Astrobiology, " Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power" Environmental Science and Technology, http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2013/2013_Kharecha_kh05000e.pdf, March 13, 2013. ***GT = gigatonnes, MT = megatonnes
29 +We calculate that world nuclear power generation prevented an average of 64 gigatonnes of CO2- equivalent (GtCO2-eq), or 17 GtC-eq, cumulative emissions from 1971 to 2009 (Figure 3a; see full range therein), with an average of 2.6 GtCO2-eq/year prevented annual emissions from 2000 to 2009 (range 2.4−2.8 GtCO2/year). Regional results are also shown in Figure 3a. Our global results are 7−14 lower than previous estimates8,9 that, among other differences, assumed all historical nuclear power would have been replaced only by coal, and 34 higher than in another study10 in which the methodology is not explained clearly enough to infer the basis for the differences. Given that cumulative and annual global fossil fuel CO2 emissions during the above periods were 840 GtCO2 and 27 GtCO2/year, respectively,11 our mean estimate for cumulative prevented emissions may not appear substantial; however, it is instructive to look at other quantitative comparisons. For instance, 64 GtCO2-eq amounts to the cumulative CO2 emissions from coal burning over approximately the past 35 years in the United States, 17 years in China, or 7 years in the top five CO2 emitters.11 Also, since a 500 MW coal-fired power plant typically emits 3 MtCO2/year,26 64 GtCO2-eq is equivalent to the cumulative lifetime emissions from almost 430 such plants, assuming an average plant lifetime of 50 years. It is therefore evident that, without global nuclear power generation in recent decades, near-term mitigation of anthropogenic climate change would pose a much greater challenge. For the projection period 2010−2050, in the all coal case, an average of 150 and 240 GtCO2-eq cumulative global emissions are prevented by nuclear power for the low-end and high-end projections of IAEA,6 respectively. In the all gas case, an average of 80 and 130 GtCO2-eq emissions are prevented (see Figure 3b,c for full ranges). Regional results are also shown in Figure 3b,c. These results also differ substantially from previous studies,9,10 largely due to differences in nuclear power projections (see the Supporting Information). To put our calculated overall mean estimate (80−240 GtCO2-eq) of potentially prevented future emissions in perspective, note that, to achieve a 350 ppm CO2 target near the end of this century, cumulative “allowable” fossil CO2 emissions from 2012 to 2050 are at most ∼500 GtCO2 (ref 3). Thus, projected nuclear power could reduce the climate-change mitigation burden by 16−48 over the next few decades (derived by dividing 80 and 240 by 500).
30 +Without nuclear power, needed climate change reduction becomes impossible. Hansen and Kharecha 2
31 +James Hansen, PhD in Physics from the University of Iowa; Currently works at the Earth Institute as a Professor at Columbia University, Pushker Kharecha, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies; Researcher at Columbia in Earth Science; PhD’s in Geosciences and Astrobiology, " Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power" Environmental Science and Technology, http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2013/2013_Kharecha_kh05000e.pdf, March 13, 2013
32 +In conclusion, it is clear that nuclear power has provided a large contribution to the reduction of global mortality and GHG emissions due to fossil fuel use. If the role of nuclear power significantly declines in the next few decades, the International Energy Agency asserts that achieving a target atmospheric GHG level of 450 ppm CO2-eq would require “heroic achievements in the deployment of emerging lowcarbon technologies, which have yet to be proven. Countries that rely heavily on nuclear power would find it particularly challenging and significantly more costly to meet their targeted levels of emissions.” 2 Our analysis herein and a prior one7 strongly support this conclusion. Indeed, on the basis of combined evidence from paleoclimate data, observed ongoing climate impacts, and the measured planetary energy imbalance, it appears increasingly clear that the commonly discussed targets of 450 ppm and 2 °C global temperature rise (above preindustrial levels) are insufficient to avoid devastating climate impacts; we have suggested elsewhere that more appropriate targets are less than 350 ppm and 1 °C (refs 3 and 31−33). Aiming for these targets emphasizes the importance of retaining and expanding the role of nuclear power, as well as energy efficiency improvements and renewables, in the near-term global energy supply
33 +Warming is real, and the melting of the ice caps causes extinction. Hartmann 8/4
34 +Daily Take Team, Thom Hartmann Show, 8-4-16, "Are We Looking at a Mass Extinction Event?," Truthout, http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/37116-are-we-looking-at-a-mass-extinction-event
35 +The report describes a "toppling of several symbolic mileposts" in 2015, and makes it clearer than ever that climate change is real, that human activity is the primary driver and that we're watching the effects play out in real time. The year 2015 was one-tenth of a degree Celsius hotter than 2014, making it the warmest year on record; but, based on the fact that the last 14 months have all been record-breaking months, 2016 is likely to take that record from 2015. Our oceans also saw record breaking oceanic temperatures in 2015: The Pacific was 2 degrees Celsius warmer than the long-term average, and the Arctic reached a shocking 8 degrees Celsius above average. Other significant changes described in the State of the Climate report for 2015 include the Arctic hitting its lowest recorded maximum sea ice extent in February of 2015, the world's alpine glaciers registering a net annual loss of ice for the 36th year in a row, and the Greenland ice sheet melting over more than 50 percent of its surface. This year, Greenland's melt season started two months earlier than usual and scientists are now very concerned about what could happen if this rate of warming continues, or accelerates. But what's really terrifying isn't the melting itself, it's what will be released if we don't take immediate action to curb the climate change that's happened because of the 350 billion tons of carbon we've already burned into the atmosphere since 1850. Dr. Charles Miller with NASA's Carbon in Arctic Reservoirs Vulnerability Experiment (CARVE) astonished me recently when he estimated that there are 1,500 BILLION tons of carbon locked in the Arctic soils, and nearly 10,000 BILLION tons of methane clathrates trapped at the bottom of the Arctic sea. Right now we've already warmed the planet by 1 degree Celsius, and because of the delayed impacts of dumping carbon into the atmosphere, we've likely already locked in another 1 degree Celsius of warming on top of that, and what Dr. Miller's data suggests is that we could see another 1 degree Celsius of warming if just 10 to 20 percent of the permafrost melts in the Arctic. And all over the planet we're already experiencing the effects of ice melt in the Arctic as more open water in the Arctic leads to more evaporation: like the collapse of the jet stream and the extremely cold winters we've seen on the East Coast of the United States. Some scientists now fear that as ice-melt accelerates in the Arctic, we could see that 1,500 billion tons of land-based carbon and 10,000 billion tons of sea-based methane released into the atmosphere from the permafrost and from beneath the Arctic Sea where it's been trapped for hundreds of thousands or even millions of years. If that happens, some scientists estimate that we would see a mass extinction event on the level of the Permian extinction, when up to 96 percent of the all marine species and 70 percent of all land-based species on the planet were wiped out, and it's unlikely that humans would be one of the surviving species. That path to extinction though, started with our use of fossil fuels. To save human and other life as we know it on this planet, we need to put a price on carbon NOW, and we need to hold those who fund climate deniers accountable for knowing the risks of fossil fuels for decades, and lying to the public about it. Our next president needs to get serious about taking the lead to fight climate change by investing in a modern-day Manhattan Project-scale effort to capture carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and to aggressively transform our energy infrastructure to 100 percent renewable as soon as possible. Our survival as a species may well depend on it.
36 +Case
37 +I/L Takeout: Prolif
38 +Squo solves: safeguards, international pressure, and NPT signatures. Plus, alt cause: political uncertainty. WNA 16
39 +World Nuclear Association Nuclear Power ThinkTank, holds an annual Symposium comprised of nuclear power experts, Updated: April 2016 (no date given), "Nuclear Proliferation Safeguards," http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/non-proliferation/safeguards-to-prevent-nuclear-proliferation.aspx. Accessed: 9/7/16
40 +Over the past 35 years the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) safeguards system under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) has been a conspicuous international success in curbing the diversion of civil uranium into military uses. It has involved cooperation in developing nuclear energy while ensuring that civil uranium, plutonium and associated plants are used only for peaceful purposes and do not contribute in any way to proliferation or nuclear weapons programs. In 1995 the NPT was extended indefinitely. Its scope is also being widened to include undeclared nuclear activities. Most countries have renounced nuclear weapons, recognising that possession of them would threaten rather than enhance national security. They have therefore embraced the NPT as a public commitment to use nuclear materials and technology only for peaceful purposes.The successful conclusion, in 1968, of negotiations on the NPT was a landmark in the history of non-proliferation. After coming into force in 1970, its indefinite extension in May 1995 was another. The NPT was essentially an agreement among the five nuclear weapons states and the other countries interested in nuclear technology. The deal was that assistance and cooperation would be traded for pledges, backed by international scrutiny, that no plant or material would be diverted to weapons' use. Those who refused to be part of the deal would be excluded from international cooperation or trade involving nuclear technology. At present, 189 states plus Taiwan are parties to the NPT. These include all five declared Nuclear Weapons States (NWS) which had manufactured and exploded a nuclear weapon before 1967: China, France, the Russian Federation, the UK and the USA. The main countries remaining outside the NPT are Israel, India and Pakistan, though North Korea has moved to join them. These all have weapons programs which have come to maturity since 1970, so they cannot join without renouncing and dismantling those. In 2008 special arrangements were agreed internationally for India, bringing it part way in, and its ratification of the Additional Protocol in 2014 put it on a similar footing to the five NWS. In mid-2013, 181 states plus Taiwan had safeguards agreements with IAEA in force.The NPT's main objectives are to stop the further spread of nuclear weapons, to provide security for non-nuclear weapon states which have given up the nuclear option, to encourage international co-operation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, and to pursue negotiations in good faith towards nuclear disarmament leading to the eventual elimination of nuclear weapons. The most important factor underpinning the safeguards regime is international political pressure and how particular nations perceive their long-term security interests in relation to their immediate neighbours. The solution to nuclear weapons proliferation is thus political more than technical, and it certainly goes beyond the question of uranium availability. International pressure not to acquire weapons is enough to deter most states from developing a weapons program. The major risk of nuclear weapons' proliferation will always lie with countries which have not joined the NPT and which have significant unsafeguarded nuclear activities, and those which have joined but disregard their treaty commitments. For further information on India and Pakistan, see the respective papers in this series. For information on Iran, North Korea, Israel and Iraq, see the Appendix to this paper.The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)The IAEA was set up by unanimous resolution of the United Nations in 1957 to help nations develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Allied to this role is the administration of safeguards arrangements. This provides assurance to the international community that individual countries are honouring their treaty commitments to use nuclear materials and facilities exclusively for peaceful purposes.The IAEA therefore undertakes regular inspections of civil nuclear facilities to verify the accuracy of documentation supplied to it. The agency checks inventories and undertakes sampling and analysis of materials. Safeguards are designed to deter diversion of nuclear material by increasing the risk of early detection. They are complemented by controls on the export of sensitive technology from countries such as UK and USA through voluntary bodies such as the Nuclear Suppliers' Group. Safeguards are backed up by the threat of international sanctions.Scope of safeguardsIt is important to understand that nuclear safeguards are a means of reassurance whereby non-nuclear weapons states demonstrate to others that they are abiding by their peaceful commitments. They prevent nuclear proliferation in the same way that auditing procedures build confidence in proper financial conduct and prevent embezzlement. Their specific objective is to verify whether declared (usually traded) nuclear material remains within the civil nuclear fuel cycle and is being used solely for peaceful purposes or not.Non-nuclear-weapons state parties to the NPT agree to accept technical safeguards measures applied by the IAEA. These require that operators of nuclear facilities maintain and declare detailed accounting records of all movements and transactions involving nuclear material. Almost 900 nuclear facilities and several hundred other locations in 57 non-nuclear-weapons countries are subject to regular inspection. Their records and the actual nuclear material are audited. Inspections by the IAEA are complemented by other measures such as surveillance cameras and instrumentation.The aim of traditional IAEA safeguards is to deter the diversion of nuclear material from peaceful use by maximising the risk of early detection. At a broader level they provide assurance to the international community that countries are honouring their treaty commitments to use nuclear materials and facilities exclusively for peaceful purposes. In this way safeguards are a service both to the international community and to individual states, who recognise that it is in their own interest to demonstrate compliance with these commitments.The inspections act as an alert system providing a warning of the possible diversion of nuclear material from peaceful activities. The system relies on; Material Accountability – tracking all inward and outward transfers and the flow of materials in any nuclear facility. This includes sampling and analysis of nuclear material, on-site inspections, review and verification of operating records. Physical Security – restricting access to nuclear materials at the site of use. Containment and Surveillance – use of seals, automatic cameras and other instruments to detect unreported movement or tampering with nuclear materials, as well as spot checks on-site. All NPT non-weapons states must accept these 'full-scope' safeguards, which apply to all nuclear facilities in the country. In the five weapons states plus the non-NPT states (India, Pakistan and Israel), facility-specific safeguards apply to relevant plants (see further section below). IAEA inspectors regularly visit these facilities to verify completeness and accuracy of records. Uranium supplied to nuclear weapons states is not, under the NPT, covered by safeguards. However normally there is at least a "peaceful use" clause in the supply contract, and in the case of Australia, a bilateral safeguards agreement is required which does cover all uranium supplied and all materials arising from it (as "Australian obligated nuclear materials" – AONM). Neither the peaceful use clause nor the bilateral treaty mean that materials are restricted to facilities on the state's list of facilities eligible for IAEA inspection. The NPT is supplemented by other safeguards systems such as those among certain European nations (Euratom Safeguards) and between individual countries (bilateral agreements) such as Australia and customer countries for its uranium, or Japan and the USA. The terms of the NPT cannot be enforced by the IAEA itself, nor can nations be forced to sign the treaty. In reality, as shown in Iran and North Korea, safeguards are backed up by diplomatic, political and economic measures.
41 +Huge alt cause – could just proliferate from the existing waste they have. WNA 16
42 +World Nuclear Association Nuclear Power ThinkTank, holds an annual Symposium comprised of nuclear power experts, Updated: April 2016 (no other date given), "Nuclear Proliferation Safeguards," http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/non-proliferation/safeguards-to-prevent-nuclear-proliferation.aspx. Accessed: 9/7/16
43 +While nuclear power reactors themselves are not a proliferation concern, enrichment and reprocessing technologies are open to use for other purposes, and have been the cause of proliferation through illicit or unsafeguarded use, as outlined in the Appendix to this paper. This problem is largely addressed in the Additional Protocol, as described above, and in fact such sensitive nuclear technologies (SNT) are largely confined to NPT weapons states plus Japan. For most countries they would make no economic sense, and several recent initiatives focus on how to create conditions which make them unattractive propositions.
44 +We control empirics, and the alt cause is true of every country. WNA 16
45 +Civil nuclear power has not been the cause of or route to nuclear weapons in any country that has nuclear weapons, and no uranium traded for electricity production has ever been diverted for military use. All nuclear weapons programmes have either preceded or risen independently of civil nuclear power*, as shown most recently by North Korea. No country is without plenty of uranium in the small quantities needed for a few weapons.*An exception may have been South Africa. See also individual case studies.
46 +Nuke terror
47 +No risk of nuclear terror – assumes every warrant
48 +Mueller 10 (John, professor of political science at Ohio State, 2010, Calming Our Nuclear Jitters, Issues in Science and Technology, Winter, http://www.issues.org/26.2/mueller.html)
49 +Politicians of all stripes preach to an anxious, appreciative, and very numerous choir when they, like President Obama, proclaim atomic terrorism to be “the most immediate and extreme threat to global security.” It is the problem that, according to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, currently keeps every senior leader awake at night. This is hardly a new anxiety. In 1946, atomic bomb maker J. Robert Oppenheimer ominously warned that if three or four men could smuggle in units for an atomic bomb, they could blow up New York. This was an early expression of a pattern of dramatic risk inflation that has persisted throughout the nuclear age. In fact, although expanding fires and fallout might increase the effective destructive radius, the blast of a Hiroshima-size device would “blow up” about 1 of the city’s area—a tragedy, of course, but not the same as one 100 times greater. In the early 1970s, nuclear physicist Theodore Taylor proclaimed the atomic terrorist problem to be “immediate,” explaining at length “how comparatively easy it would be to steal nuclear material and step by step make it into a bomb.” At the time he thought it was already too late to “prevent the making of a few bombs, here and there, now and then,” or “in another ten or fifteen years, it will be too late.” Three decades after Taylor, we continue to wait for terrorists to carry out their “easy” task. In contrast to these predictions, terrorist groups seem to have exhibited only limited desire and even less progress in going atomic. This may be because, after brief exploration of the possible routes, they, unlike generations of alarmists, have discovered that the tremendous effort required is scarcely likely to be successful. The most plausible route for terrorists, according to most experts, would be to manufacture an atomic device themselves from purloined fissile material (plutonium or, more likely, highly enriched uranium). This task, however, remains a daunting one, requiring that a considerable series of difficult hurdles be conquered and in sequence. Outright armed theft of fissile material is exceedingly unlikely not only because of the resistance of guards, but because chase would be immediate. A more promising approach would be to corrupt insiders to smuggle out the required substances. However, this requires the terrorists to pay off a host of greedy confederates, including brokers and money-transmitters, any one of whom could turn on them or, either out of guile or incompetence, furnish them with stuff that is useless. Insiders might also consider the possibility that once the heist was accomplished, the terrorists would, as analyst Brian Jenkins none too delicately puts it, “have every incentive to cover their trail, beginning with eliminating their confederates.” If terrorists were somehow successful at obtaining a sufficient mass of relevant material, they would then probably have to transport it a long distance over unfamiliar terrain and probably while being pursued by security forces. Crossing international borders would be facilitated by following established smuggling routes, but these are not as chaotic as they appear and are often under the watch of suspicious and careful criminal regulators. If border personnel became suspicious of the commodity being smuggled, some of them might find it in their interest to disrupt passage, perhaps to collect the bounteous reward money that would probably be offered by alarmed governments once the uranium theft had been discovered. Once outside the country with their precious booty, terrorists would need to set up a large and well-equipped machine
50 +
51 +
52 +Elections
53 +Trump can’t win – Electoral College system
54 +Waldaman 16 Paul Waldaman, 5-4-2016, "Why the outcome of the 2016 election is already crystal clear," The Week, http://theweek.com/articles/622075/why-outcome-2016-election-already-crystal-clear
55 +The general election between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump promises to be one of the weirdest, nastiest, and most fascinating cultural/political events of any of our lifetimes. So bear with me for a little while as I suck all the life out of it and explain why it's actually going to be pretty simple. The likely outcome, while not completely preordained, is already clear to see. That's because of the strange and rather undemocratic feature of our presidential voting system known as the Electoral College. While an essay in favor of eliminating it will have to wait for another day, the key fact about the college is that it makes the race matter only in those states where both sides have some chance of winning, what we usually call the "battleground" states. There aren't very many of them, and even before the general election begins — i.e., even before Republicans nominate Donald Trump, perhaps the most unpopular major party nominee in history — the Democratic nominee has a serious advantage. Let's take the last four elections, two won by Barack Obama and two won by George W. Bush, as our starting point. There were 17 states (plus D.C.) that Democrats won in all four of those elections: California, Oregon, and Washington in the West; Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, and Michigan in the Midwest; and everything in the Northeast from Maryland on up, with the exception of New Hampshire. Just those states give the Democrats 242 of the 270 electoral votes they need to take the White House. The Republicans, on the other hand, won 22 states in all four of those elections, covering parts of the Deep South, th e Midwest, and the Mountain West, plus Alaska. But those states only add up to 180 electoral votes. While there are a few states in those two groups where things might become competitive — Republicans will contest Wisconsin, and Democrats think they have a chance in Arizona, for instance — the truth is that even in this unusual election year, none of them are likely to flip. Donald Trump could strangle a puppy on live television and he would still win Idaho and Mississippi; Hillary Clinton could make Martin Shkreli her running mate and she'd still win California and Massachusetts. But if any of those states do change, it's likely to be in Clinton's direction, given Trump's unpopularity. That Democratic advantage, 242-180 at the outset, may be the single most important pair of numbers to understand in determining the ultimate outcome of the race. What it means is that Donald Trump will have to not just do well in swing states, he'll have to sweep almost all of them in order to win. Here's a revealing comparison. In 2004, George W. Bush beat John Kerry by 2.5 percentage points nationwide — close, but compared to the 2000 election, a relatively easy victory. In doing so, he took the swing states of Florida, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, Iowa, Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico. The only true swing state Kerry won was New Hampshire. Yet Bush won the Electoral College by a margin of only 35 electoral votes, 286-251. Contrast that with 2012, when Barack Obama beat Mitt Romney by 4 percentage points — a little more comfortable than Bush's 2004 win, but not hugely different. On the state level, Obama bested Bush's 2004 results only by taking New Hampshire. Yet Obama's margin in the Electoral College was enormous: 332-206, or 126 votes. If Hillary Clinton starts with those 242 electoral votes, she only needs 28 more to win. As it happens, Florida has 29 electoral votes, so she could win there, lose every other swing state, and still win. Or she could take Virginia (13 EVs) and North Carolina (15 EVs) and lose all the others. Or she could take Ohio (18), New Hampshire (4), and Iowa (6) and lose all the others. Or...well, you get the idea. There are a whole variety of ways Clinton could win, while Trump has to run the table. That isn't to say that the national result doesn't matter; it's only been in the rarest of circumstances (like 2000) that the total vote and the electoral vote pointed in opposite directions. But by now few people are saying that Donald Trump has such fantastic appeal to working class white men that he can steal states in the Midwest, or tap some heretofore unnoticed vein of votes. And you can forget about the momentary disgruntlement from supporters of Bernie Sanders playing a major role; in November, Clinton will retain the votes of nearly all Democrats. Barack Obama got the votes of 92 percent of Democrats in 2012, and she'll be in the same neighborhood. Will Donald Trump do as well among Republicans? He might, as they realize that the alternative is Clinton, so they might as well go with their party's nominee even if he wasn't their first choice. But Trump only needs to bleed a couple of points in his party for the election to fall well out of his reach. Looking at the election this way can make the daily back-and-forth of the campaign seem unimportant. But that's true only if you think that the final outcome is all that matters. It isn't; the campaign is an opportunity for us to discuss all kinds of issues and get to know ourselves as a country better, even if we don't always like what we see. This election will by turns be fascinating, outrageous, appalling, disgusting, disheartening, and perhaps even inspiring. But when it's all over, the chances that anyone will be saying the words "President Trump" are pretty low.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2016-09-18 04:26:17.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +James Braden
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +St Agnes CD
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +5
Team
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +West Nelson Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +1NC WarmingShift Greenhill Round 5
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Greenhill
Caselist.RoundClass[0]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +0
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2016-09-17 17:22:16.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Varad Agarwala
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Sunset RB
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Greenhill
Caselist.RoundClass[1]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +1
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2016-09-18 01:13:05.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Felix Tan
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Marlborough MC
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +4
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Greenhill
Caselist.RoundClass[2]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2016-09-18 04:26:12.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +James Braden
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +St Agnes CD
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +5
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Greenhill
Caselist.RoundClass[3]
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2016-10-28 20:16:28.395
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Zane Miller
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Rancho Bernardo AW
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +1
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Meadows

Schools

Aberdeen Central (SD)
Acton-Boxborough (MA)
Albany (CA)
Albuquerque Academy (NM)
Alief Taylor (TX)
American Heritage Boca Delray (FL)
American Heritage Plantation (FL)
Anderson (TX)
Annie Wright (WA)
Apple Valley (MN)
Appleton East (WI)
Arbor View (NV)
Arcadia (CA)
Archbishop Mitty (CA)
Ardrey Kell (NC)
Ashland (OR)
Athens (TX)
Bainbridge (WA)
Bakersfield (CA)
Barbers Hill (TX)
Barrington (IL)
BASIS Mesa (AZ)
BASIS Scottsdale (AZ)
BASIS Silicon (CA)
Beckman (CA)
Bellarmine (CA)
Benjamin Franklin (LA)
Benjamin N Cardozo (NY)
Bentonville (AR)
Bergen County (NJ)
Bettendorf (IA)
Bingham (UT)
Blue Valley Southwest (KS)
Brentwood (CA)
Brentwood Middle (CA)
Bridgewater-Raritan (NJ)
Bronx Science (NY)
Brophy College Prep (AZ)
Brown (KY)
Byram Hills (NY)
Byron Nelson (TX)
Cabot (AR)
Calhoun Homeschool (TX)
Cambridge Rindge (MA)
Canyon Crest (CA)
Canyon Springs (NV)
Cape Fear Academy (NC)
Carmel Valley Independent (CA)
Carpe Diem (NJ)
Cedar Park (TX)
Cedar Ridge (TX)
Centennial (ID)
Centennial (TX)
Center For Talented Youth (MD)
Cerritos (CA)
Chaminade (CA)
Chandler (AZ)
Chandler Prep (AZ)
Chaparral (AZ)
Charles E Smith (MD)
Cherokee (OK)
Christ Episcopal (LA)
Christopher Columbus (FL)
Cinco Ranch (TX)
Citrus Valley (CA)
Claremont (CA)
Clark (NV)
Clark (TX)
Clear Brook (TX)
Clements (TX)
Clovis North (CA)
College Prep (CA)
Collegiate (NY)
Colleyville Heritage (TX)
Concord Carlisle (MA)
Concordia Lutheran (TX)
Connally (TX)
Coral Glades (FL)
Coral Science (NV)
Coral Springs (FL)
Coppell (TX)
Copper Hills (UT)
Corona Del Sol (AZ)
Crandall (TX)
Crossroads (CA)
Cupertino (CA)
Cy-Fair (TX)
Cypress Bay (FL)
Cypress Falls (TX)
Cypress Lakes (TX)
Cypress Ridge (TX)
Cypress Springs (TX)
Cypress Woods (TX)
Dallastown (PA)
Davis (CA)
Delbarton (NJ)
Derby (KS)
Des Moines Roosevelt (IA)
Desert Vista (AZ)
Diamond Bar (CA)
Dobson (AZ)
Dougherty Valley (CA)
Dowling Catholic (IA)
Dripping Springs (TX)
Dulles (TX)
duPont Manual (KY)
Dwyer (FL)
Eagle (ID)
Eastside Catholic (WA)
Edgemont (NY)
Edina (MN)
Edmond North (OK)
Edmond Santa Fe (OK)
El Cerrito (CA)
Elkins (TX)
Enloe (NC)
Episcopal (TX)
Evanston (IL)
Evergreen Valley (CA)
Ferris (TX)
Flintridge Sacred Heart (CA)
Flower Mound (TX)
Fordham Prep (NY)
Fort Lauderdale (FL)
Fort Walton Beach (FL)
Freehold Township (NJ)
Fremont (NE)
Frontier (MO)
Gabrielino (CA)
Garland (TX)
George Ranch (TX)
Georgetown Day (DC)
Gig Harbor (WA)
Gilmour (OH)
Glenbrook South (IL)
Gonzaga Prep (WA)
Grand Junction (CO)
Grapevine (TX)
Green Valley (NV)
Greenhill (TX)
Guyer (TX)
Hamilton (AZ)
Hamilton (MT)
Harker (CA)
Harmony (TX)
Harrison (NY)
Harvard Westlake (CA)
Hawken (OH)
Head Royce (CA)
Hebron (TX)
Heights (MD)
Hendrick Hudson (NY)
Henry Grady (GA)
Highland (UT)
Highland (ID)
Hockaday (TX)
Holy Cross (LA)
Homewood Flossmoor (IL)
Hopkins (MN)
Houston Homeschool (TX)
Hunter College (NY)
Hutchinson (KS)
Immaculate Heart (CA)
Independent (All)
Interlake (WA)
Isidore Newman (LA)
Jack C Hays (TX)
James Bowie (TX)
Jefferson City (MO)
Jersey Village (TX)
John Marshall (CA)
Juan Diego (UT)
Jupiter (FL)
Kapaun Mount Carmel (KS)
Kamiak (WA)
Katy Taylor (TX)
Keller (TX)
Kempner (TX)
Kent Denver (CO)
King (FL)
Kingwood (TX)
Kinkaid (TX)
Klein (TX)
Klein Oak (TX)
Kudos College (CA)
La Canada (CA)
La Costa Canyon (CA)
La Jolla (CA)
La Reina (CA)
Lafayette (MO)
Lake Highland (FL)
Lake Travis (TX)
Lakeville North (MN)
Lakeville South (MN)
Lamar (TX)
LAMP (AL)
Law Magnet (TX)
Langham Creek (TX)
Lansing (KS)
LaSalle College (PA)
Lawrence Free State (KS)
Layton (UT)
Leland (CA)
Leucadia Independent (CA)
Lexington (MA)
Liberty Christian (TX)
Lincoln (OR)
Lincoln (NE)
Lincoln East (NE)
Lindale (TX)
Livingston (NJ)
Logan (UT)
Lone Peak (UT)
Los Altos (CA)
Los Osos (CA)
Lovejoy (TX)
Loyola (CA)
Loyola Blakefield (MA)
Lynbrook (CA)
Maeser Prep (UT)
Mannford (OK)
Marcus (TX)
Marlborough (CA)
McClintock (AZ)
McDowell (PA)
McNeil (TX)
Meadows (NV)
Memorial (TX)
Millard North (NE)
Millard South (NE)
Millard West (NE)
Millburn (NJ)
Milpitas (CA)
Miramonte (CA)
Mission San Jose (CA)
Monsignor Kelly (TX)
Monta Vista (CA)
Montclair Kimberley (NJ)
Montgomery (TX)
Monticello (NY)
Montville Township (NJ)
Morris Hills (NJ)
Mountain Brook (AL)
Mountain Pointe (AZ)
Mountain View (CA)
Mountain View (AZ)
Murphy Middle (TX)
NCSSM (NC)
New Orleans Jesuit (LA)
New Trier (IL)
Newark Science (NJ)
Newburgh Free Academy (NY)
Newport (WA)
North Allegheny (PA)
North Crowley (TX)
North Hollywood (CA)
Northland Christian (TX)
Northwood (CA)
Notre Dame (CA)
Nueva (CA)
Oak Hall (FL)
Oakwood (CA)
Okoboji (IA)
Oxbridge (FL)
Oxford (CA)
Pacific Ridge (CA)
Palm Beach Gardens (FL)
Palo Alto Independent (CA)
Palos Verdes Peninsula (CA)
Park Crossing (AL)
Peak to Peak (CO)
Pembroke Pines (FL)
Pennsbury (PA)
Phillips Academy Andover (MA)
Phoenix Country Day (AZ)
Pine Crest (FL)
Pingry (NJ)
Pittsburgh Central Catholic (PA)
Plano East (TX)
Polytechnic (CA)
Presentation (CA)
Princeton (NJ)
Prosper (TX)
Quarry Lane (CA)
Raisbeck-Aviation (WA)
Rancho Bernardo (CA)
Randolph (NJ)
Reagan (TX)
Richardson (TX)
Ridge (NJ)
Ridge Point (TX)
Riverside (SC)
Robert Vela (TX)
Rosemount (MN)
Roseville (MN)
Round Rock (TX)
Rowland Hall (UT)
Royse City (TX)
Ruston (LA)
Sacred Heart (MA)
Sacred Heart (MS)
Sage Hill (CA)
Sage Ridge (NV)
Salado (TX)
Salpointe Catholic (AZ)
Sammamish (WA)
San Dieguito (CA)
San Marino (CA)
SandHoke (NC)
Santa Monica (CA)
Sarasota (FL)
Saratoga (CA)
Scarsdale (NY)
Servite (CA)
Seven Lakes (TX)
Shawnee Mission East (KS)
Shawnee Mission Northwest (KS)
Shawnee Mission South (KS)
Shawnee Mission West (KS)
Sky View (UT)
Skyline (UT)
Smithson Valley (TX)
Southlake Carroll (TX)
Sprague (OR)
St Agnes (TX)
St Andrews (MS)
St Francis (CA)
St James (AL)
St Johns (TX)
St Louis Park (MN)
St Margarets (CA)
St Marys Hall (TX)
St Thomas (MN)
St Thomas (TX)
Stephen F Austin (TX)
Stoneman Douglas (FL)
Stony Point (TX)
Strake Jesuit (TX)
Stratford (TX)
Stratford Independent (CA)
Stuyvesant (NY)
Success Academy (NY)
Sunnyslope (AZ)
Sunset (OR)
Syosset (NY)
Tahoma (WA)
Talley (AZ)
Texas Academy of Math and Science (TX)
Thomas Jefferson (VA)
Thompkins (TX)
Timber Creek (FL)
Timothy Christian (NJ)
Tom C Clark (TX)
Tompkins (TX)
Torrey Pines (CA)
Travis (TX)
Trinity (KY)
Trinity Prep (FL)
Trinity Valley (TX)
Truman (PA)
Turlock (CA)
Union (OK)
Unionville (PA)
University High (CA)
University School (OH)
University (FL)
Upper Arlington (OH)
Upper Dublin (PA)
Valley (IA)
Valor Christian (CO)
Vashon (WA)
Ventura (CA)
Veritas Prep (AZ)
Vestavia Hills (AL)
Vincentian (PA)
Walla Walla (WA)
Walt Whitman (MD)
Warren (TX)
Wenatchee (WA)
West (UT)
West Ranch (CA)
Westford (MA)
Westlake (TX)
Westview (OR)
Westwood (TX)
Whitefish Bay (WI)
Whitney (CA)
Wilson (DC)
Winston Churchill (TX)
Winter Springs (FL)
Woodlands (TX)
Woodlands College Park (TX)
Wren (SC)
Yucca Valley (CA)