CREW Debate Question #1:

Nuclear energy is a better alternative to

fossil fuels.
Focus Point 1 - Does nuclear energy help solve
the problem of global warming? Why or why not?
Group Members: Ilse, Diego, Litzye, Acel
PRO: Nuclear energy is the BEST way
to solve the global warming problem.

CON: Nuclear energy is NOT THE

BEST way to solve the global warming
problem.

Claim:

Claim:

Reason:
1. Nuclear power provides low-carbon
electricity, though its long-term role in
combatting climate change depends on
overcoming economic and safety
hurdles.

Reason:
1. Nuclear meltdowns contaminate for a
long time

2. The world needs to drop its global

warming pollution by 6 percent annually
to avoid dangerous climate change.
On a global scale, its hard to see how
we could conceivably accomplish this
without nuclear.
3. It is possible to generate a high
amount of electrical energy in one
single plant.
Evidence (source must be included
in parenthesis):
1. The low-carbon electricity produced
by such reactors provides 20 percent of
the nation's power and, by the
estimates of climate scientist James
Hansen of Columbia University, avoided
64 billion metric tons of greenhouse gas
pollution.
2. The speediest drop in greenhouse

2. The construction of large nuclear

power plants requires a lot of money to
ensure safety and reliability.

3. U.S. nuclear power plants have not

eliminated the threat of nuclear
weapons despite 20 years of megatons
to megawatts.

Evidence (source must be included

in parenthesis):
1. Nuclear meltdowns have high
amounts of radiation that even when
cleaned up are highly radioactive and
there(Source)
2. Despite a generally high security
standard, accidents can still happen. It
is technically impossible to build a plant
with 100% security. A small probability

gas pollution on record occurred in

France in the 1970s and 80s, when that
country transitioned from burning fossil
fuels to nuclear fission for electricity,
lowering its greenhouse emissions by
roughly 2 percent per year.

of failure will always last.

3. At todays prices for the two AP-1000

reactors being built in Georgia, such an
investment would cost $7 trillion.

3. Nuclear power generation does emit

relatively low amounts of carbon dioxide
(CO2). The emissions of greenhouse
gases and therefore the contribution of
nuclear power plants to global warming
is therefore relatively little.
Warrant:
The use of nuclear plants can create
energy with low greenhouse gases
emissions.

Warrant:
Nuclear energy is not 100 percent
reliable and out of all the possible
alternatives it poses the greatest risk.

CREW Debate Question #1:

Nuclear energy is a better alternative to
fossil fuels.
Focus Point 2 - What should be done about the
current infrastructure of fossil fuel usage in our
society?
PRO: ?Fossil fuel infrastructure
SHOULD remain as is due to the
benefits of using fossil fuels.

CON: Fossil fuel infrastructure SHOULD

CHANGE as is due to the many
negative outcomes of using fossil fuels.

Claim:

Claim:

Reason:
1. Well developed

Reason:
1. Many of the environmental problems
our country faces today result from the
fossil fuel dependence. These impact
include global warming, air quality
deterioration, oil spills, and acid rain.

2. Cheap and reliable

2. Continuing to burn fossil fuels at the

3. They are the biggest source of

energy

current rate will lead to catastrophic

climate change.
3. If carbon dioxide levels continue to
increase, the planet will become
warmer in the next century.

Evidence (source must be included

in parenthesis):
1. Fossil fuels are Americas primary
source of energy. Accounting for 85
percent of current US fuel use.
2. The technology we use to harness
the energy in fossil fuels is well
developed. The main reason for this is
that fossil fuels have been used to
power our world for many decades.
3. Fossil fuels are cheap and reliable
sources of energy. They are excellent
types of fuel to use for the energy baseload, as opposed to some of the more
unreliable energy sources such as wind
and solar.
Warrant:
Fossil fuels have being the main sources
of energy in many countries for
decades.

Evidence (source must be included

in parenthesis):
1. Since reliable records began in the
late 1800s, the global average surface
temperature has risen 0.5 - 1.1 degrees
Fahrenheit (0.3 - 0.6 degrees Celsius)
2. Project temperature increase will
most likely result in a variety of
impacts. In coastal areas, sea-level rise
due to the warming of the oceans and
the melting of glaciers may lead to the
inundation of wetlands, river deltas, and
even populated areas.
3. Several important pollutants are
produced by fossil fuel combustion:
carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides,
sulfur oxides, and hydrocarbon.
Warrant:
Fossil fuels are the main reason for
global warming and the problems the
human race now face everyday.

CREW Debate Question #2:

Nuclear waste can be disposed of efficiently
and safely.
Focus Point 1 - Is there a location that is fair and
safe to store nuclear waste? Why or why not?
Group Members:
PRO Argument
Claim: There IS a location that is fair
and safe to store nuclear waste

CON Argument
Claim: There IS NOT a location that is
fair and safe to store nuclear waste.

Reason:
1. The moon exists
2. There are a lot of empty places in the
world that are uninhabited that it
wouldnt matter if we made
uninhabitable

Reason:
1. Radioactivity will continue
for too long
2. You are making nearly
everywhere that you would put it
uninhabitable

3. There are already safe storage places

where the nuclear waste goes to and is
kept safe

3. Used nuclear fuel may be treated as a

resource or simply as a waste

Evidence (source must be included

in parenthesis):
1.
http://www.worldnuclear.org/information-library/currentand-future-generation/the-nucleardebate.aspx

Evidence (source must be included

in parenthesis):
1. The interim storage location for
Southern California Edisons (SCE) 1632
tons of spent fuel and nuclear waste is
located near known earthquake faults
and a tsunami zone that suffers yearly
fire and windstorm dangers, and sits in
an ocean environment of salt air
corrosion surrounded by a dense
population of over 8.4 million people
within its 50 mile radius. (Source)

2.
http://world-nuclear.org/informationlibrary/nuclear-fuel-cycle/transport-ofnuclear-materials/transport-ofradioactive-materials.aspx

3. Used nuclear fuel is in storage at the

nations nuclear energy facilities. Most
plants store used fuel in steel-lined,
concrete pools filled with water, which
acts as a natural barrier for radiation.
The water also keeps the fuel cool while
radiation decays. The water itself does
not leave the used fuel pool. (Source)

Warrant:

2. This extraordinary legacy of

dangerous radioactive waste is present
in every country that has adopted
nuclear power as a form of electricity
production, as well as those with
nuclear weapons. No country has yet
solved the problem of how to deal with
waste that remains dangerous to
humans for thousands of years.
(Source)
3. Kevin Kamps, a nuclear waste expert
for Maryland-based Beyond Nuclear,
spoke in Port Huron on June 16, 2015,
about the dangers of the nuclear waste
dump proposed for Kincardine, Ontario,
about a half-mile from Lake Huron. "We
are 73 years into the Atomic Age and
we still don't know what to do with the
first cupful of nuclear that Enrico Fermi
generated on Dec. 2, 1942," said
Kamps. (Source)
Warrant:

There are safe places around the world

where nuclear waste can be storage

There still no proven safe place to

storage the nuclear waste, and is still an
ongoing problem

CREW Debate Question #2:

Nuclear waste can be disposed of efficiently
and safely.
Focus Point 2 - Is there a safe process of
transporting and storing nuclear waste? Why or
why not?
PRO Argument
Claim: There IS a safe process of
transporting and storing nuclear waste.

CON Argument
Claim: There IS NOT a safe process of
transporting and storing nuclear waste.

Reason:
1. Technology has improved to a point
that we can trust it enough to protect
us.

Reason:
1. There is no way of being sure that

2. The way the nuclear waste is storage

is exploding-free
3. Water is a safe way to store waste.
Evidence (source must be included
in parenthesis):
1. There is proven technologies to
dispose of the radioactive wastes safely.
For low- and intermediate-level wastes
these are mostly being implemented.
For high-level wastes some countries
await the accumulation of enough of it
to warrant building geological
repositories; others, such as the USA,
have encountered political delays.
(Source)
2. Used nuclear fuel consists of ceramic
pellets encased in metal tubes. The fuel

2. Potential terrorist threat to use waste

as bombs.
3. The idea of accidents happening
during disposal and transport is a big
possibility.
Evidence (source must be included
in parenthesis):
1. The International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA) has identified medical
and industrial radioactive sources as
posing considerable concern in terms of
potential terrorist threats from their use
in 'dirty bombs'. (Source)
2. The option of disposal of waste into
space has been examined repeatedly
since the 1970s. This option has not
been implemented and further studies
have not been performed because of
the high cost of this option and the

cannot explode, and the massive

containers in which it is transported can
protect public health and the
environment and transportation
accidents involving chemicals or other
flammable materials. After extensive
studies, both the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission and the
National Academy of Sciences
concluded that used nuclear fuel can be
transported safely. (Source)
3. Most plants store used fuel in steellined, concrete pools filled with water,
which acts as a natural barrier for
radiation. (Source)

Warrant:
The world has gone very far when it
comes to technology and is ready to
protect humanity from nuclear
disasters.

safety aspects associated with the risk

of launch failure. (Source)
3. Although most of the time a lot of
emphasis is placed on the safe disposal
of nuclear waste, accidents do occur.
Throughout history there have
unfortunately been a number of
examples of times where radioactive
material was not disposed of in the
proper ways. This has resulted in a
number of disastrous situations,
including nuclear waste being spread by
dust storms into areas that were
populated by humans and animals and
contaminated of water, whether ponds,
rivers or even the sea. These accidents
can have disastrous knock on effects for
the animals that reside in or around
these areas or that rely on the water of
lakes or ponds to survive. (Source)
Warrant:
Even with the technology that exists
today, the probability of an accident is
still possible.

CREW Debate Question #3:

Nuclear energy is a better alternative to
hydropower, solar, and wind energy.
Focus Point 1 - Do the benefits of nuclear energy
outweigh the benefits of renewable energy
sources?
Group Members:
PRO Argument
Claim: The benefits of nuclear DO
outweigh renewables. (Do not talk
about cost).

CON Argument
Claim: The benefits of nuclear DO
NOT outweigh renewables. (Do not talk
about cost).

Reason:
1. Way more energy
produced per hour.

Reason:
1. High-known risk in an
accident.

2.nuclear takes up way less space.

2. Long construction time

3.Very safe to build them. Not as

dangerous as people think.

3.Target for terrorism

Evidence (source must be included

in parenthesis):
1.It would cost over $29 Trillion to generate
Americas baseload electric power with a 50 /
50 mix of wind and solar farms and about 3
trillion for just nuclear since we have to build so
much less
q``(http://energyrealityproject.com/lets-run-thenumbers-nuclear-energy-vs-wind-and-solar)

Evidence (source must be included

in parenthesis):
1. The explosions caused by
nuclear power plants sometimes
have potential to be ten times
bigger than an atomic bomb.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=BfKm0XXfiis

2. AP-1000 Light Water Reactors are

efficient and we could use them to
power all of the US with them only
taking up a few square miles.
(http://energyrealityproject.com/lets-run-thenumbers-nuclear-energy-vs-wind-and-solar)

3.Although reactors produce nearly 20% of

Americas power, and have been in use for over
fifty years, there have been just five deaths from
construction and inspection accidents. Only
three people have ever died from the actual
production of American atomic energy, when an
experimental reactor suffered a partial
meltdown in 1961.

2. https://www.oecdnea.org/news/press-kits/economicsFAQ.html
5-7 years not counting getting licensing
and permits

3. Uranium and plutonium can be found

in atomic bombs and nuclear power
plants

Warrant:

Warrant:

Cheaper, more effective makes it

Unsafe in more than one way.

more practical. Accidents in US

have been minimal.

CREW Debate Question #3:

Nuclear energy is a better alternative to
hydropower, solar, and wind energy.
Focus Point 2 - Are the benefits of nuclear energy
higher than renewables if cost is included in the
comparison?
PRO Argument
Claim: The benefits of nuclear DO
outweigh renewables when cost is
included.
Reason:

CON Argument
Claim: The benefits of nuclear DO
NOT outweigh renewables when cost is
included.
Reason:

1. Price of kw/h is reasonable

2. If you include cost then this is more

stable steady output of power than
solar that only works at night and wind
that only works during windy days

1. Nuclear energy is very

expensive with construction costs
2.

The Cost is rising

3. Not helping pay taxes as much

3. Electricity can be manufactured as

needed.

Evidence (source must be included

in parenthesis):
1.This exercise has real-world application. The
620 MW (megawatt) Vermont Yankee nuclear
reactor was recently shut down. So were the

Evidence (source must be included

in parenthesis):
1. The first generation of nuclear power

two SONGS reactors in San Onofre, which

generated a combined total of 2.15 GWs
(gigawatts). But the public didnt suddenly go on
an energy diet; in the wake of Fukushima, they
were just more freaked out than usual about
nuclear power.
Regardless, the energy generated by these
reactors will have to be replaced, either by
building more power plants or by importing the
electricity from existing facilities.
To make the numbers easier to think with, well
postulate a 555 MW reactor that has an
industry-standard

90%

online

performance

(shutting down for refueling and maintenance)

and delivers a net of 500 MW, sufficient to
provide electricity for 500,000 people living at
western standards. The key question is this:
What will it take to replace a reactor that
delivers 500 MW of baseload (constant) power
with wind or solar?

http://www.worldnuclear.org/informationlibrary/economic-aspects/economics-ofnuclear-power.aspx
2. Electricity output varies and when
some plants are shut down energy
needed is put on other plants that were
previously relied on to make less energy
http://www.worldnuclear.org/informationlibrary/economic-aspects/economics-ofnuclear-power.aspx
3.$0.05 to $0.10 per kilowatt hour
http://www.worldnuclear.org/informationlibrary/economic-aspects/economics-ofnuclear-power.aspx

plants proved so costly to build that half

of them were abandoned during
construction. Between 2002 and 2008,
for example, cost estimates for new
nuclear plant construction rose from
between $2 billion and $4 billion per
unit to $9 billion per unit, according to a
2009 UCS report, while experience with
new construction in Europe has seen
costs continue to soar. Public financing
for energy alternatives should be
focused on fostering innovation and
achieving the largest possible reduction
in heat-trapping emissions per dollar
investednot on promoting the growth
of an industry that has repeatedly
shown itself to be a highly risky
investment.
(http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclearpower/cost-nuclearpower#.V0TFjnErLC1)
2.
But it will cost us at least 1.17 Million tonnes
of CO2 just to get our turbines built and shipped.
And remember, that doesnt include the CO2 of
fabrication, assembly, and the land transport at
both ends.
(http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclearpower/cost-nuclearpower#.V0TFjnErLC1)
3.Like our pumped-storage wind farm, our CSP
energy will be distributed from storage at a
steady 500 MW of baseload power, with a 24-hr
margin of continuous operationmeaning if
we know well be offline because a big storm is
coming in, the masters of the grid will have 24
hours to line up another producer who can fill in.
With enough baseload renewables plants in
enough regions of the country, 24 hours will
(hopefully) be sufficient.
Although solar capacity in the U.S. averages
17%, its a dead certainty that if we actually do
go with a national renewables infrastructure,
well put CSP plants in the southwest deserts
where theyll do the most good. And if some of
them end up 50 miles from nowhere, itll just be

another $50 million a pop (not counting the

transmission corridor) to hook them into the
grid. Which is chump change, given the overall
price tag.
The California deserts have a CSP capacity
factor of 33%, so lets roll with that. Remember,
Andasol is high desert, and most of our deserts
are at low elevation, with thicker air for the sun
to punch through. But the USA is still CSP
country.

http://energyrealityproject.com/lets-runthe-numbers-nuclear-energy-vs-windand-solar/
Warrant:

Warrant:

More proficient than fossil fuels

High cost and environmental

impact.

CREW Debate Question #4:

Nuclear energy is truly capable of powering
our world indefinitely.
Focus Point 1 - Will nuclear fission be a limitless
solution to our energy needs?
Group Members:
PRO Argument
Claim: Nuclear fission IS a limitless
solution to our energy needs.
Reason:
1. Lower carbon dioxide released into
the atmosphere in power generation.
2. Reactors could run more than 200

CON Argument
Claim: Nuclear fission IS NOT a
limitless solution to our energy needs.
Reason:
1. There is no perfect energy source.
Each and every one has its own
advantages and compromises.

years at current rates of consumption.

3. It can produce unlimited energy even
during a disaster

2. Nuclear fission is even more harmful

when it comes to radiation.
3. Waste coming from nuclear fission is
extremely harmful for both humans and
the environment

Evidence (source must be included

in parenthesis):
1. Nuclear fission is a reliable source
power that can be converted into
electricity. Its totally different from
other sources of energy such as fossil
fuels when it comes to reliability. Its
supply is unlimited even in the middle
of disasters. (Source)

Evidence (source must be included

in parenthesis):
1. Nuclear fission produces radiation
that can also kill many people through
several kinds of diseases. Radiation is
unnoticeable and people should wear
the appropriate protective attire for it in
the locations where it is present like
nuclear plants. (Source)

2. The power that is generated through

nuclear power plants is immense. They
are able to meet the needs of large, and
industrial cities as well as suburban
towns. The energy is also quick to
create, meaning that they are able to
make a large amount of some form of
emergency required it. (Source)

2. It can cause meltdown in the different

parts of the globe which is very
dangerous to the people who are relying
on it as a good source of power.
(Source)

3. The nuclear fuel, once used in the

reactor gives off energy that will last for
years while in the case of fossil fuels,
there is a need for several refills over a
period of time. This makes nuclear
fission less expensive and the
maintenance and operation costs of the
nuclear power plant lower. (Source)
Warrant:
Nuclear energy can provide unlimited
energy to fit humans needs

3. Despite the importance of nuclear

fission to produce energy for electricity,
the same process results to the
production of waste materials that are
equally harmful to both the people and
the environment. And with the
accumulation of nuclear waste without
proper disposal sites, government
agencies will have to look for locations
to dump these product wastes. (Source)

Warrant:
Nuclear fission is far more dangerous
than fusion, creating far more greater
concerns and potential dangers for
humans and the world

CREW Debate Question #4:

Nuclear energy is truly capable of powering
our world indefinitely.

Focus Point 2 - Will our energy needs be the

same in the future?
PRO Argument
Claim: Our energy needs WILL
continue to be the same in the
future.
Reason:
1. The world can only sustain so many
people anyways
2. Once we make our energy collection
3. Nuclear energy may eventually turn
to fusion energy once they figure it out

CON Argument
Claim: Our energy needs WILL NOT
continue to be the same in the
future.
Reason:
1. The population will rise and is
estimated to be about 28 percent
higher by 2050
2. Electricity demand is known to grow
rapidly
3. Our energy needs will increase and/or
change during the next years

Evidence (source must be included

in parenthesis):
1. 2 billion and 40 billion people is the
estimated max amount of people and
this depends on lifestyle
2. Exploring the future of energy is
particularly challenging because we
appear to be entering a period of
innovation in energy development, and
there are several different paths the
energy system might take. Between
now and 2050, those paths will be
determined by a wide range of needs,
possibilities, and choices by consumers,
business, and governments. (Source)

Evidence (source must be included

in parenthesis):
1. New fuels of 2040 will be oil, coal,
and natural gas. We will find ourselves
baking, painfully uncomfortable planet.
(Tom Dispatch)
2. With the United Nations predicting
world population growth from 6.7 billion
in 2011 to 8.7 billion by 2035, demand
for energy must increase substantially
over that period. Both population
growth and increasing standards of
living for many people in developing
countries will cause strong growth in
energy demand, as outlined above.

Electricity demand almost doubled from

3. Because of our technology getting

1990 to 2011
better, we are using smaller amounts of
energy to power up our supplies. We are
using less energy than we have a
couple years ago.
3. Renewable energy can provide 80%
(Source)
of U.S electricity by the year of 2050.
Energy being: wind turbines, solar
photovoltaics,concentrating solar
power, biopower, geothermal, and
hydropower.
(Source)

Warrant:
We are heading in a better
direction because of renewable
energy, we are having a better
future for our environment.

Warrant:
The fact that non renewable energy
needs, we need to change the
something about it.

CREW Debate Question #5:

Accidents that can happen at nuclear energy
plants are acceptable risks.
Focus Point 1 - If an accident occurs, do the
possible negative outcomes outweigh the benefits
of nuclear energy?
Group Members:
PRO Argument
Claim: The benefits of nuclear energy
DO outweigh the potentials risks
associated with nuclear accidents.

CON Argument
Claim: The benefits of nuclear energy
DO NOT outweigh the potentials risks
associated with nuclear accidents.

Reason:
1. There is no way our earth could
sustain amount of people that live on
earth without the amount of energy we
have.

Reason:
1. Any way of getting energy is not
worth it if it has the potential to harm
people on such a large scale

Evidence (source must be included

in parenthesis):
1. Some of the advantages from
Nuclear energy are: lower greenhouse

Evidence (source must be included

in parenthesis):
1. While being environmentally friendly
is the big plus of nuclear energy,

2. Radioactivity cannot be fully

2. Nuclear energy is the cleanest energy contained
that humans know of.
3. Nuclear disasters, no matter how
3. Nuclear energy produces more
high the security is, can still happen
energy as it produces energy basically
the whole day.

gas emissions, powerful and efficient,

reliable, cheap electricity, low fuel cost,
supply, and easy transportation.
(Source)
2. Nuclear energy is considered as one
of the most environmentally friendly
source of energy as it produces fewer
greenhouse gas emissions during the
production of electricity as compared to
traditional sources like coal power
plants. (Source)
3. The production of electric energy is
continuous. A nuclear power plant is
generating electricity for almost 90% of
annual time. It reduces the price
volatility of other fuels such as petrol.
(Source)

disposal of radioactive waste and

protecting people and environment
from its radiations is a big cons of
nuclear energy. Therefore, expensive
solutions are needed to protect
humanity and earth from any possible
accident that could happen due to poor
handling of nuclear power. (Source)
2. Despite the high level of
sophistication of the safety systems of
nuclear power plants the human aspect
has always an impact. Facing an
unexpected event or managing a
nuclear accident we don't have any
guarantee that decisions we took are
always the best. Two good examples are
Chernobyl and Fukushima. (Source)
3. Some of the other disadvantage from
Nuclear energy are: radioactive waste,
nuclear accidents, nuclear radiation,
high cost, national risk, impact on
aquatic life, major impact on human
life, fuel availability, non renewable.
(Source)

Warrant:
Nuclear energy is the cleanest source of
energy in the world and produces low
levels of greenhouse gases.

Warrant:
Nuclear energy is too dangerous for the
human race, and its effects can last for
years, if not decades, still harming
those who get too close.

CREW Debate Question #5:

Accidents that can happen at nuclear energy
plants are acceptable risks.
Focus Point 2 - Can nuclear reactors and nuclear
waste storage sites be protected against human
error, natural disasters, and acts of terrorism?
PRO Argument
Claim: Nuclear reactors and
nuclear waste storage sites CAN be

CON Argument
Claim: Nuclear reactors and
nuclear waste storage sites

protected against human error,

natural disasters and acts of
terrorism.
Reason:
1. Nobody non-allowed cannot get
anywhere near close to the nuclear
reactors and storage of waste.
2. The nuclear power plants and waste
storage are protected also by
electronics and set apart from everyone
else.
3. The security for Nuclear power plants
is constantly increasing.
Evidence (source must be included
in parenthesis):
1. The nuclear energy industry
maintains very strict security to prevent
unauthorized persons from gaining
access to critical equipment or
approaching close enough to harm the
facility with land- or air-borne
explosives. Security measures include:
physical barriers, electronic detection
and assessment systems, and
illuminated detection zones, electronic
surveillance and physical patrols of the
plant perimeter and interior structures,
bullet-resisting protected positions
throughout the plant, robust barriers to
critical areas, background checks and
access control for employees, and
highly trained, well-armed security
officers. (Source)
2. Computer systems that help operate
nuclear reactors and their safety
equipment are isolated from the
Internet to protect against outside
intrusion. However, the nuclear industry
takes measures to ensure that its
nuclear plants are protected from cyber
attacks. (Source)
3. The NRC holds nuclear power plants
to the highest security standards of any

CANNOT always be protected

against human error, natural
disasters and acts of terrorism.
Reason:
1. Usa is not ready to protect a power
plant if a terrorist were to attack
2. Nuclear energy power plants are
main targets to anyone who has a
grudge against the country in where
they are.
3. After the incident in Fukushima, it is
proved that nuclear plants need more
protection against natural disasters.
Evidence (source must be included
in parenthesis):
1. After the September 11th attacks,
we discovered that al-Qaeda had
considered attacking a nuclear power
plant in the U.S., and we know that
terrorists continue to search for targets
that would cause the greatest level of
damage to our people and economy,
said Senator Edward Markey,
Massachusetts democrat and critic of
nuclear power. (Source)
2. Nuclear reactors represent a clear
national security risk, and an attractive
target for terrorists. In researching the
security around nuclear power plants,
Robert Kennedy, Jr. found that there are
at least eight relatively easy ways to
cause a major meltdown at a nuclear
power plant. (Source)
3. Some lessons have already emerged
from Fukushima that can help guide
U.S. policymakers. Clearly, Americas
approach to nuclear-waste management
needs to be updated. Simultaneously,
an early comparison of U.S. and
Japanese approaches to safety at
commercial nuclear power plants
demonstrates some of the benefits of
the U.S. approach. Ultimately, however,

American industry. Since 2001, the

agency has elevated nuclear plant
security requirements numerous times
by issuing orders and other formal
requirements. (Source)

U.S. policymakers should wait until a full

accounting of the Fukushima accident
can take place before they draw any
broad conclusions for the domestic
nuclear industry. (Source)

Warrant:
There is special security when it comes
to protecting power plants.

Warrant:
The security in power plants still have a
long road ahead of them of upgrading
before everyone can be sure that they
are completely danger ready to protect
the power and those around it.